Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/1/2008 7:08:39 AM EDT
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374222,00.html


This mirrored many of my same thoughts, particularly, what Justice Scalia limited from happening through Heller.

I cheered, then I read the decision, then I wondered...

Balko addresses these issues in the article.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 7:20:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2008 7:21:54 AM EDT by Grunteled]
I still think people are focusing on one or two paragraphs and missing the overall ruling. How would an AWB be consistent with the fact that when the opinion addressed bans that allow other functional firearms they directly indicated that was not defense. Allowing rifles but not handguns, no. Allowing handguns but no rifles, no. Allowing nothing over 30 caliber, no. I can't see hoe you can read the whole decision and come the conclusions that the above would pass muster.


I do have a feeling some federal circuits are going to be very willing to make mental pretzels to avoid striking down a restriction though and the wording of the opinion gives them some cover to do so.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 9:04:35 AM EDT
Yep. Symbolic victory. Important symbolic victory. Comparable, in my view, to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Certainly worth celebrating, but it took a long time and a lot of heartache and blood before Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

We've got a long, hard 50-100 years ahead of us, and the outcome is far from certain.

The basketball game has just started, and we scored the first basket. Good for us! Now we need to get back on defense and keep them from scoring.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 9:07:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2008 9:09:26 AM EDT by jrkarp]
From the article:



And there’s the rub. Scalia’s opinion says the Second Amendment’s "individual right" to bear arms extends only to self defense and, even then, only in one’s home.


The opinion says no such thing.

Also:



Most significantly, Scalia’s decision neglected to incorporate the individual right to gun ownership to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.


An issue not before the Court.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 9:42:00 AM EDT


Most significantly, Scalia’s decision neglected to incorporate the individual right to gun ownership to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.




Didn't say it didn't apply either. And given the wording he did use:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


I do not see much wiggle room. We are back to 'What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' do you not understand?

People need to stop looking for what it doesn't say and start looking at what it does say.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 3:20:48 PM EDT
Not a useful article. There is no way that the author had competent , knowledgable people fact check that thing.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 4:26:27 PM EDT
It was a silly piece. He knows better. Frankly, I'm not a Radley Balko fan.
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 5:32:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By frick:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374222,00.html


This mirrored many of my same thoughts, particularly, what Justice Scalia limited from happening through Heller.

I cheered, then I read the decision, then I wondered...

Balko addresses these issues in the article.


I'm sure Mr. Balko is a nice guy. He's not a lawyer. (First strike.) And, he's under 40. (Second strike.) There's nothing in his background or writings that gives me reason (pun intended) to think he has some special insight into the case. Heller is a great victory. It's not the end of the discussion on the right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who thinks so is ignorant and/or intellectually lazy. Freedom isn't free and it ain't easy. . . . .
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 5:33:09 PM EDT
Well, a key fight, which should happen soon, is the denial of an entire class of weapons, in DC, which are the semi auto pistols.

Common usage, should apply, or, more likely, the fact of uncommon usage, say like a Full auto Glock, should be one of the arguments that the pro's use.

You can't have one gun which fits the definition, and one gun, that doesn't, and yet lump both as the same, when clearly they aren't.

Now, I understand that a state can make its own statutes with more regulation than its federal version, but, this would be like taking over the counter cough syrup, and classifying it the same a version with Codeine, or classifying tobacco the same as Marijuana.

Whoops! I should probably erase that, it might give Kalifornia more ideas....
Link Posted: 7/1/2008 5:46:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By frick:
Well, a key fight, which should happen soon, is the denial of an entire class of weapons, in DC, which are the semi auto pistols.

Common usage, should apply, or, more likely, the fact of uncommon usage, say like a Full auto Glock, should be one of the arguments that the pro's use.

You can't have one gun which fits the definition, and one gun, that doesn't, and yet lump both as the same, when clearly they aren't.

Now, I understand that a state can make its own statutes with more regulation than its federal version, but, this would be like taking over the counter cough syrup, and classifying it the same a version with Codeine, or classifying tobacco the same as Marijuana.

Whoops! I should probably erase that, it might give Kalifornia more ideas....


That's what I heard on NPR (I know, I know) today. A DC official said they were not going to allow people to possess semi auto pistols. Don't y'all think this will be another court case?
Link Posted: 7/2/2008 7:59:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/2/2008 8:01:12 AM EDT by campperrykid]
The boss of DC is volunteering to the very first example of what happens to a mayor
who plays games with Supremes.


Clarence Thomas will be one of the many who will kick his jive talkin' a$$.

Bring it on , mayor.
Link Posted: 7/2/2008 10:22:59 AM EDT
I agree CPKid.

They really appear to be making an attempt to spit into the faces of the Court, and thats not going to help them, even amongst the Liberal Judges.

None of them want to tolerate disrespect, and I hope, that they unanimously speak as one, when they continue to disregard the ruling.

The day that ruling was issued, DC's law was gone, and they should have been meeting the next day, to agree to toss the law, not taking their time, and further pondering how many restrictions they can get away with.

And its that particular aspect of Heller that worries me.

What are "Reasonable" restrictions?

Do you put a poll up on Rosie.com?

Do you go to redneck Bubbatown Arkansas and let them vote on it?

Or do you just impose as MANY as you CAN, and make every case a legal battle for the pro gunners?

Thats what I fear, just like a gun has to be "Sporting" to be imported, is who defines "Reasonable"?
Link Posted: 7/4/2008 9:35:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I still think people are focusing on one or two paragraphs and missing the overall ruling. How would an AWB be consistent with the fact that when the opinion addressed bans that allow other functional firearms they directly indicated that was not defense. Allowing rifles but not handguns, no. Allowing handguns but no rifles, no. Allowing nothing over 30 caliber, no. I can't see hoe you can read the whole decision and come the conclusions that the above would pass muster.

I do have a feeling some federal circuits are going to be very willing to make mental pretzels to avoid striking down a restriction though and the wording of the opinion gives them some cover to do so.

At that point, it makes a cert app to SCOTUS both easier and more likely.

What it doesn't do is guarantee cert will be granted, but if we get enough Circuit splits, the chance goes up somewhat.

I've got a good feeling about 2A litigation/jurisprudence in the post-Heller world; hopefully I'm not wrong.
Link Posted: 7/4/2008 9:37:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jrkarp:
From the article:

And there’s the rub. Scalia’s opinion says the Second Amendment’s "individual right" to bear arms extends only to self defense and, even then, only in one’s home.

The opinion says no such thing.

Agreed.

Also:

Most significantly, Scalia’s decision neglected to incorporate the individual right to gun ownership to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

An issue not before the Court.

Right. That comes next (possibly via Chicago).
Link Posted: 7/4/2008 9:44:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Most significantly, Scalia’s decision neglected to incorporate the individual right to gun ownership to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Didn't say it didn't apply either. And given the wording he did use:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


I do not see much wiggle room. We are back to 'What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' do you not understand?



People need to stop looking for what it doesn't say and start looking at what it does say.

Exactly. And while it certainly doesn't strike down registration, it does put it in the crosshairs.*


* see holding, above
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 3:51:29 PM EDT

Or do you just impose as MANY as you CAN, and make every case a legal battle for the pro gunners?


Unfortunately, that is often the case. Government frequently applies the approach of large corporations who set out to screw the individual by keeping an issue in litigation until it can be won on a technicality, a biased judiciary (in spite of the SCOTUS, lower courts do not seem to be overly burdened with either common sense or decency), or more often, by having enough money to essentially "buy" a ruling (exhaust your opponent financially). Sad part is, the govt uses our own tax dollars to employ these tactics against us.

Top Top