Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 7/9/2002 11:41:35 PM EDT
Why is it so hard to get a straightforward case against the '94 assault weapon ban to the supreme court? In Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the supreme court stated, "[b]the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia[/b]'" which reaffirmed the standing originally put forth in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) whereby the court stated, "[b]In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[/b]" So apparently the supreme court's long-standing view is that the protection of the 2nd amendment certainly does apply to military-style (or militia-style) firearms. And yet the 1994 assault weapon ban outlaws EXACTLY military-style or "militia-style" firearms that SHOULD be protected by the 2nd amendment if the rulings of Lewis and Miller are consistently applied. Why is it so hard to demonstrate that an AR15 or M16 has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" or that "this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"??????????
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:43:07 PM EDT
Short answer: Politicians are generally useless idiots who can't read a simple sentence without confusion.... Scott
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:44:42 PM EDT
Because no one needs to own an assault rifle. You dont need one to hunt with. They're made to kill people. Why would any civilian need a gun with that kind of firepower? Those are the main arguments.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:52:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 11:54:16 PM EDT by Reaganite]
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Short answer: Politicians are generally useless idiots who can't read a simple sentence without confusion.... Scott
View Quote
I'm not talking about scumbag politicians. How come well-funded organizations like GOA or NRA can't muster a SIMPLE case against the '94 assault weapon ban? Not one involving a habitual drunk or an ex-con or an illegal alien. Just a normal citizen who has his 2nd amendment rights so obviously erased. [b] If the supreme court rejected Miller because a sawed-off shotgun is not "any part of the ordinary military equipment" then why the hell can't we own NEW military-style firearms (like AR15s/M16s etc.) or high-cap mags that clearly ARE "part of the ordinary military equipment"???????? [/b] Politicians aren't the problem, they're in the peanut gallery on this. Where's the well-funded GOA, NRA???? I don't belong to either of these organizations partly because of bullshit like this.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:56:06 PM EDT
An executive order could fix everything, but because the current administration believes that "reasonable restrictions" and bans on guns the are prone to "criminal misuse" are not infringements on the 2nd Amendment, it ain't gonna happen.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:57:36 PM EDT
Long answer, In order to "fight" a law on it's Constitutionality, you have to have "legal standing" to do so. So something of yours has to be at stake before you can challenge the law. In criminal law, the something that is at stake usually is your freedom. So in order to challenge the law: 1) Get arrested and charged with possesion of an illegal weapon 2) Actually get prosecuted for the AW possesion. 3) Got to trial and get found GUILTY. This is key, and there is NO WAY any decision at Trial Court level whether or not the law is proper or not will effect anyone else. You also have to convincingly fight the charge. But not so convincingly that the jury decides you deserve a walk...... Now it get's HARDER, much HARDER 4) Appeal the conviction. 5) Actually have the Appeals Court rule on the conviction. The Appeals Court can decide not to hear your appeal. You have to have something they feel is reviewable. Also if they review and decide to send you back to Trial Court.......you did nothing repeat steps 2-5 AGAIN. The risk is that Appeals Court will find the AW ban Constiutional. 6) Appeal to the Supreme Court 7) Actually get the case ruled on by the Supreme Court. Step 7 is very unlikely. The SCOTUS hears the cases that THEY want to hear. Again they can simply refuse to hear the appeal, or they can kick it back to a lower Court. Here's the REAL problem. 2nd Amendment case don't come up for 2 reasons. 1) The Anti-gunners are afraid if they push to hard that a case will be heard by the Supreme Court, and they will kick out most gun control laws as un-Constitutional. 2) The Pro-RKBA guys are afraid if they push a case to hard to be reviewed the SCOTUS will make a ruling severly limiting Gun Rights. Other than that neither side has anything to lose. Plus logistically it is tough to get a reasonable case that even has a chance of being worthy of being heard by the Supreme Court.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:08:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Long answer, In order to "fight" a law on it's Constitutionality, you have to have "legal standing" to do so. So something of yours has to be at stake before you can challenge the law. In criminal law, the something that is at stake usually is your freedom.
View Quote
Haney was one (the other Emerson) of the gun related cases that went to the Supreme Court that the bush admin begged for them not to hear. IIRC Haney was busted for "illegally" owning machineguns and his appeal was to be fought on 2nd Amendment grounds.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:16:05 AM EDT
Thanks Oly. Glad to see there isn't a "logical" answer to it. I guess it's all just a matter of WILL. The anti-christian athiests in our county seem to have no problem getting their anti-religion cases up to the scotus every year. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but sure enough our government (and thus our society) becomes more and more antagonistic and intolerant of Christian expressions of faith. It just seems to me that with all the money being spent by organizations that supposedly "protect" the 2nd amendment and us gun-owners, they'd be charging hard to the scotus day-in-and-day-out. Sometimes they might lose, but sometimes they might win - and hopefully they'd want to push government and society to be more antagonistic and intolerant of liberal Anti-gun socialist bedwetters in our society. But then I suppose if the NRA and GOA ever got everything they want from the scotus, they'd be out of a job! fuck'em.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:28:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Reaganite: Why is it so hard to get a straightforward case against the '94 assault weapon ban to the supreme court?
View Quote
Simple answer: Because the SC can take and decide what cases it wants to and ignore other cases. Somebody tried getting the NFA challanged just this year(US vs Haney), but the SC turned down his petition. Basically because the courts are filled with gun-hating judges(even the conservatives). I used to think that the courts were the way to save our rights, but I was wrong. the courts, despite claims of independence from other branches and justice for all, agree that guns are bad.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:36:46 AM EDT
Yeah well it's cheaper to "legislate" stuff like gun bans, mag cap limits, safety test, or CCW. Than to deal with the criminals behind the guns. Dealing with criminals requires commitment, more capacity for the Courts, jails, and prisons. More relatives complaining that their 3 time violent felon was "railroaded" or his Constitutional Rights are being violated because he can't send semen to his signifigant other, so he can have a child while in prison, or his Rights are being violated because he can't get chunky peanut butter or the newest sneakers on the inside. All those things take maoney, planning, and a commitment to keeping the convicted where they worked so hard to get to. Way easier to ban flash suppresors, or imported rifles.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:55:59 AM EDT
Reaganite, I have often wondered this myself. I certainly think now is the time to push this particular issue. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:16:35 AM EDT
Historically speaking, rights are almost never given back to the people by the government. To regain rights almost always require the people to take up arms and fight. I dont beleive things have gotten bad enough to require armed resistance yet. I guess at this point the best thing to do is join the NRA, vote for pro gun politicians and hope for the best. If they succeed in disarming the public, they will eventually decide that it is in the best interest of the government that our leadership be appointed rather than elected.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:40:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Because no one needs to own an assault rifle. You dont need one to hunt with. They're made to kill people. Why would any civilian need a gun with that kind of firepower? Those are the main arguments.
View Quote
This is, of course, coupled with the idea that everything in life should be made illegal unless it can be proved to be necessary. We will eventually legislate ourselves out of existence. And, as I understand it, sometimes the federal government doesn't even need to pass a law through congress. Aren't a lot of the stupid things we have to deal with ATF "rules", not actually laws? Is this a flash suppressor, or a muzzle break? Is this easily convertible to full auto, or isn't it? Does the pistol grip protrude significantly?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:40:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By More_Cowbell: Because no one needs to own an assault rifle. You dont need one to hunt with. They're made to kill people. Why would any civilian need a gun with that kind of firepower? Those are the main arguments.
View Quote
I don't own any assault rifles. None of mine are capable of select fire.
Top Top