• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Current Status of Heller II?

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, comes enhanced scrutiny on his dissenting opinion in the case commonly known as "Heller II."

Strangely, I cannot seem to find any information about that case after the ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2011.

Was the case not appealed any further? Did SCOTUS reject it?

At least one RKBA organization is calling for Kavanaugh to be rejected, due to some of his statements in that dissent. I don't know if they will gain any traction, or what a preferred path forward might be, but it's interesting times, for sure.

TFred
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The court case quotes in the WVCDL letter are not true quotes. They are partial quotes, not complete quotes. The partial quotes are used to mislead. There are some quotes I can't even find. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

WVCDL Letter:
See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (Heller ‘did not cast doubt on [certain types of] longstanding regulatory measures’)

McDonald's actual quote:
We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Pretty important topic concerning our next SC guy, I want to see how K stacks up so I'd like to determine who's closer to the truth on this. I don't have time to dig through it all at once but gradually we can check it out.

First finding the linked WVCDL quotes of the court document in the linked court document and seeing how accurately they are quoted.

Quote #1: "First, just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility /// consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller."

(The /// is mine; see the originals, this is a list is only to uniquely identify the quotes and not to reprint them or convey the whole meaning.)

Match: Court PDF p. 55, Dissent p. "10" "B". (The spacing between words is different between the two PDFs for justification or whatever, so watch out for that when you do a browser/reader text search.)

Text: This quote looks complete to me.

Context in original: "underscore two points regarding Heller’s focus on text, history, and tradition. /// By contrast, if courts applied strict scrutiny, then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld."

Context in quoted: "deeply disturbing /// Judge Kavanaugh argues for pages on end that Heller sets up a test for the abridgement of gun rights."

Meaning of original versus critique, and Judge K versus objective reality and 2A: we'll see! :)

TBC gradually, feel free to contribute or not....
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
From the WVCDL Letter:
Distilling his dissent into a single line could easily and reasonably be done as such: “If it has been banned, it will stay banned. The existence of a ban alone, proves that ban is constitutional.”
Can somebody tell me where the quote comes from? Because it does not come Kavanaugh's dissent.

Kavanaugh's closing statement:
As I read the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional and may not be enforced. We should reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I respectfully dissent.
How is this statement contrary to the 2A?
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
From the WVCDL Letter:

Can somebody tell me where the quote comes from? Because it does not come Kavanaugh's dissent.

Kavanaugh's closing statement:
How is this statement contrary to the 2A?

A very good question. I too have been unable to find the quotes that have been attributed to Kavanaugh. Admittedly, I haven't had the time for a proper study of the referenced document but what I did read, compared to the posted quotes, left me scratching my head. I hope that somebody that has the time and understanding of the issues can settle this soon. I am beginning to suspect that Kavanaugh has been maligned but will withold judgement until I am more certain. Can it be that officers of WVCDL would sign such a letter without complete confidence that what they were signing was correct or is there another possible explanation for this seeming inconsistency? In my mind, this is a genuine mystery.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A very good question. I too have been unable to find the quotes that have been attributed to Kavanaugh. Admittedly, I haven't had the time for a proper study of the referenced document but what I did read, compared to the posted quotes, left me scratching my head. I hope that somebody that has the time and understanding of the issues can settle this soon. I am beginning to suspect that Kavanaugh has been maligned but will withold judgement until I am more certain. Can it be that officers of WVCDL would sign such a letter without complete confidence that what they were signing was correct or is there another possible explanation for this seeming inconsistency? In my mind, this is a genuine mystery.
Reverse psychology?????
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Reverse psychology?????

no, it would appear to be blatant politics through and through!

[point of clarity: at this point in time I am unable to discern a singularity rationale for the organizational stand]
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
WVCDL Summary #1:

' Distilling his dissent into a single line could easily and reasonably be done as such: "If it has been banned, it will stay banned. The existence of a ban alone, proves that ban is constitutional." '

This is NOT a quote; it is intended as a summary opinion. Interestingly it's in quotation marks. :) But obviously this is what WVCDL sees when it reads Judge K.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The court case quotes in the WVCDL letter are not true quotes. They are partial quotes, not complete quotes. The partial quotes are used to mislead. There are some quotes I can't even find. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

WVCDL Letter:

McDonald's actual quote:

I waded through this a bit, and it appears to me that WVCDL does like Kavanaugh's somewhat conservative but still somewhat middle of the ground positions, so instead of calling the shots as they are, they've gone anti-Kavanaugh and are cherry-picking whatever they can against him.

By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong about WVCDL's actions, however, the following quote seems to indicate WVCDL is misreading Kavanaugh's view:

"Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents." - Source

In fact...

"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."​

Thus, it sounds to me like Kavanaugh is saying precisely the opposite of what the WVCDL is claiming he said.

Agree or disagree?

I often see these low-brow tactics in the trenches of the liberal left. While it's rare that I see conservatives stooping to these tactics. It could be that WVCDL isn't stooping at all, but rather, they're seriously misreading Kavanaugh's views.
 
Last edited:

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
WVCDL Quote #2:

“With respect to the first step, Heller tells us ‘longstanding’ regulations are ‘presumptively lawful,’ 554 U.S. /// not likely to burden a constitutional right;”

Search word: presumptively

Match: Court PDF p. 14.

Text: Looks accurate and complete copy. The brackets etc in the WVCDL quote are in the original.

WVCDL Context: "An other example of Judge Kavanaugh’s circular logic in his Heller (II) dissent:"

Original Context: "2. The Constitutional Framework /// Under Heller, therefore, there are certain types of firearms regulations that do not govern conduct within the scope of the Amendment. /// We ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then we go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. /// we think that insofar as the laws at issue here do impinge upon a Second Amendment right, they warrant intermediate rather than strict scrutiny. /// concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by the Second Amendment. A plaintiff may rebut this presumption by showing the regulation does have more than a de minimis effect upon his right. A requirement of newer vintage is not, however, presumed to be valid."

Bigger Context Problem: Although the quote text is reproduced accurately, note that the match is on p. 14 of court PDF. The way I read the court document, Kavanaugh’s dissent begins on p. 46. The quote from p. 14 looks like part of the majority "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG."

If my identification of the quote is correct, that's a bad for WVCDL!
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
WVCDL Quote #2:

“With respect to the first step, Heller tells us ‘longstanding’ regulations are ‘presumptively lawful,’ 554 U.S. /// not likely to burden a constitutional right;”

Search word: presumptively

Match: Court PDF p. 14.

Text: Looks accurate and complete copy. The brackets etc in the WVCDL quote are in the original.

WVCDL Context: "An other example of Judge Kavanaugh’s circular logic in his Heller (II) dissent:"

Original Context: "2. The Constitutional Framework /// Under Heller, therefore, there are certain types of firearms regulations that do not govern conduct within the scope of the Amendment. /// We ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then we go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. /// we think that insofar as the laws at issue here do impinge upon a Second Amendment right, they warrant intermediate rather than strict scrutiny. /// concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by the Second Amendment. A plaintiff may rebut this presumption by showing the regulation does have more than a de minimis effect upon his right. A requirement of newer vintage is not, however, presumed to be valid."

Bigger Context Problem: Although the quote text is reproduced accurately, note that the match is on p. 14 of court PDF. The way I read the court document, Kavanaugh’s dissent begins on p. 46. The quote from p. 14 looks like part of the majority "Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG."

If my identification of the quote is correct, that's a bad for WVCDL!

This is also the way I reacted to this section, but didn't have the time to reread and explore it as throughtly as you have done here. Something is terribly amiss with the WVCDL letter.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Would be nice if the term "prior restraint" were included in these court cases. Place the court in the box they created themselves when 1A cases came before them.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
What is the definition of keeping and bearing arms?

"...the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed."

When you dive into the Founding Fathers' period documents, you find discussions about people keeping arms vs surrendering them to an armory. They discussed whether the arms would be more secure if they were dispersed, but subject to an enemy's use of mass, or in an armory, where they and their protectors could amass, but where they were also subject to total failure if the enemy managed to to torch the armory.

The term "bear" has always been synonymous with carry. Bear one's burdens. Bear the guilt. Guide bearers. Pall bearers. She couldn't bear the suspense any longer.

Dictionary examples.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
keep·ing means the action of owning, maintaining, or protecting something.

bear·ing means to carry or possess.

"...the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed."

When you dive into the Founding Fathers' period documents, you find discussions about people keeping arms vs surrendering them to an armory. They discussed whether the arms would be more secure if they were dispersed, but subject to an enemy's use of mass, or in an armory, where they and their protectors could amass, but where they were also subject to total failure if the enemy managed to to torch the armory.

The term "bear" has always been synonymous with carry. Bear one's burdens. Bear the guilt. Guide bearers. Pall bearers. She couldn't bear the suspense any longer.

Dictionary examples.


but what does SCOTUS think it means?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
but what does SCOTUS think it means?
If you want to know that answer go read Heller. Scalia went into great detail to explain your question. But, in short the court said:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

From this point forward I suggest you do your own research and not ask us to your work. That's what google is for.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
If you want to know that answer go read Heller. Scalia went into great detail to explain your question. But, in short the court said:

From this point forward I suggest you do your own research and not ask us to your work. That's what google is for.

smh.

It was a couple rhetorical questions pointing out that no matter what the court says or thinks, it's never quite right.

But thanks for the suggestion.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
but what does SCOTUS think it means?

My only concern with SCOTUS is they do their job, judicially enforcing our U.S. Constitution as it was written.

Funny thing about the Constitution. It wasn't written in legalese. The lawyers of their day slung lingo just as complicated as lawyers do today. Rather, it was written for the People. The Framers specifically kept it simple and straightfoward.

It really takes some effort to twist and distort its meaning like so many have managed to do.

The key is that We the People should know what is written through and through, and should always be aware of the ongoing attempts to undermine it and ready to support and defend it.
 
Top