Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: dc gun case victory?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    i'm sure everybody has heard about it but i just thought it'd be interesting to see what everybody thought including opinions fromon the weight of the case to potential avenues for the any part of the gun movements legal manuevers.

    (curious because as i'm writing this i'm downloading the courts opinions to read them myself).

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I'm not happy with the overall message: "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    Sure, it's better than what we have, but it's just not good enough in my book.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    SNIP Sure, it's better than what we have, but it's just not good enough in my book.
    +1



    Liberty is the compelling state interest.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I'm not happy with the overall message: "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    Sure, it's better than what we have, but it's just not good enough in my book.
    CA Libertarian hit the nail on the head. For what it's worth, here's the blurb I fired off to a friend a little while ago:

    The Heller decision today really only addresses one major issue: The 2nd Amendment does, indeed, apply to an INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, the decision will be largely ignored by many pro-regulation jurisdictions because the definition of what constitutes "infringement" was not adaquately addressed in this decision. This case(Heller) is a really good start and will be the basis for many, better rulings(in favor of the citizens' right to keep and bear arms) to come. The definition of infringement will be hammered out in the courts for years to come.
    California will continue to claim the Heller decision is irrelevant to California due to the "Incorporation Doctrine". Eventually, though, this Heller decision will be used to Incorporate 2nd Amendment rights to Californians. In the meantime, California(and many other jurisdictions) will continue to "infringe" at will. In other words, in California, the gun laws will continue to get worse before they eventually get better. I hope I'm wrong and that the Governator will take this ruling to heart and will veto most CA gun legislation as an "unconstitutional infringement" on the right to keep and bear arms. Probably wishful thinking.
    Just my opinion.

  5. #5
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I'm not happy with the overall message: "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    Sure, it's better than what we have, but it's just not good enough in my book.
    It is still a compromise-

    "Yes, you have a right to own a gun, but- we can still tell you what size, what capacity, where, how, and when it may be carried- or whether or not it can be loaded..."

    This compromise nullifies in the smallest degree the fact that it is an 'individual right'.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    It's a baby step. But it's a step in the right direction.



  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    It's a baby step. But it's a step in the right direction.
    I agree, but I just don't understand how anybody can be breaking out the champaign over this...

    The court affirmed two important things today:
    1) RKBA is an individual right
    2) The state has the right to infringe upon RKBA

    Really, the only standard for gun control set by this case is that the state cannot completely ban handguns and cannot require a gun to be kept locked at alll times. That's not much... and I don't see how that's going to be much help to CA.

    I don't see it helping Open Carry in the least... which is all the more reason we need to keep doing it.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Solano County, California, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    I'm not happy with the overall message: "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    Sure, it's better than what we have, but it's just not good enough in my book.
    That summarizes the majority opinion, and four of the Justices didn't even want to go that far. I have a healthy fear of our government.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    It is a major victory. The tide has turned. We will be pushing the other side back now, rather than losing ground.

    As for "The state has the right to infringe upon RKBA", of course it does. No right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is without limits.



    “Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” (22)

    “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not[.]” (22)
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-...-the-majority/

    Another thing to remember is, Scalia probably had to keep the tone down a bit, and make compromises, in order to keep Kennedy on our side.

    There will be a flood of cases because of Heller. Some we will lose, but many we will win.




  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    The ruling should invalidate Hickman v Block which is the basis of nearly all CA anti gun laws, particularly discretionary issue.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    I am primarily disapointed that it was such a close decision 5-4. I was really hoping for 6-3 or 7-2.

    As to the content of the decision I am very happy. We shouldn't have been expecting very much. The most important thing is the principle that individuals have and may assert their 2A rights. Individuals can now bring lawsuits to challenge various gun laws.

    The S.Ct. only decides the question before it, in this case a ban on POSSESSION of handguns in the home and a requirement that long guns be kept locked or disassembled. The S.Ct. struck those requirements down. Given that this is a historic case because itrecognizes a right that had slumbered for 200 years, the Court is obviously going to take incremental steps. It is entering uncharted territory and won't establish broadh sweeping principles but will proceed step by step.

    The next major step is to establish, by suing a state or local actor rather than a federal body, that the 2A is "incorporated" and applies against the states as well as against the federal gov't. Thus the lawsuits vs. Chicago which has very similar legislation to DC.

    After that, the courts will be involved in determining the standard of review to apply to various situations and outlining the extent of the 2A.

    I'm not sure why people are unhappy with the message that the 2A is an individual right but it has limits. Every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits. What will be interesting is to find out the extent to which the S.Ct. will allow restrictions/limits on the right to keep and bear arms. Very little of what the S.Ct. said was controversial or indicative of how they will address that question in the future.

    They affirmed that felons and mentally ill may be restricted from possessing firearms. I hope this isn't controversial.

    They affirmed that "sensitive places" such as schools and some gov't buildings may restrict possession within them. This may be more controversial to members of this forum but I would hope that we can largely agree that there may be some places in which firearm possession isn't "necessary" and in which gov't can restrict such possession. The real question is the extent to which government can designate places as "sensitive" and how they will be required to justify naming any particular place as a "sensitive" location at which firearms can be prohibited.

    They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial. What is important is where they draw the line. I definitely think individuals don't need to own man portable anti-tank rocket launchers or missiles. I doubt very many people think the 2A protects possession of such weapons. I personally don't have a problem with a restriction on the possession of crew served belt fed machine guns. I hope that the "assault weapons" laws (the federal one has lapsed but Califa. and some other states have enacted similar laws) are deemed unconstitutional. An AR or M14 doesn't seem to be unusual or particularly "dangerous" to me. The borderline for me is full auto submachine guns. It would be cool to own one but I can see an argument that the 2A doesn't need to protect our right to own fully auto weapons. I can see a reasonable argument on either side.

    So far the S.Ct. has really only addressed the "to Keep" portion of the 2A. The other part "and bear" will also need to be addressed. Will the 2A be interpreted to protect a right to wear a handgun? Concealed or only open?









  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I think the question of Incorporation has already been settled for California.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.



  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    BillMCyrus wrote:
    The ruling should invalidate Hickman v Block which is the basis of nearly all CA anti gun laws, particularly discretionary issue.
    The government has no legitimate right to be in the business of issuing permission slips in the first place. Concealed carry is as much a right as open carry. Heller may make it easier to get your papers, but you're still gonna be asking some rich politician for permission to exercise a right.

    I guess if that doesn't bother you then 'shall-issue' is a good thing.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    I agree that it isn't right to need to do so but I know that it's a step in the right direction, and the more people we have legally carrying the more our rights can be stood up for. I'll take it as a means to gain more political footholding, and it should work quite well. For me it's also a means to be counted--I get CCW permits as a form of a vote. A state politician can be reminded of just how many people are like me in a verifiable way so that we are not so easily ignored. If it makes sense to get people carrying who otherwise wouldn't then I'll take it as a trade for the time being.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    I'm not sure why people are unhappy with the message that the 2A is an individual right but it has limits. Every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits.
    I'm not sure why people are happy with that message. Does it make it better to know that every other right outlined in the constitution is subject to trampling? Not to me. "...shall not be infringed" is very specific and concise. If the founders wanted there to be exceptions, the would have used different wording, like "shall not be unreasonably infringed"... like the did with 'unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th Amendment.

    They affirmed that felons and mentally ill may be restricted from possessing firearms. I hope this isn't controversial.
    This is controversial. Felons are not always violent. Once time is served, their debt to society is paid... yet they lose their rights permanently. If they're so dangerous they can't own a gun they should be in jail. If they truly are dangerous telling them not to buy a gun won't stop them illegally or just stealing one.

    Mental illness is another shady area. Again, if they're that dangerous lock them up. Again, telling them they can't buy one won't stop them from getting one if they're motivated. The most dangerous part of this deprivation of rights is the potential for abuse. It's far too easy to say someone is mentally ill without really proving it. I'm sure there's a few LEOs that think I'm mentally ill because I think it's a good idea to OC. Way too much potential for abuse here...

    They affirmed that "sensitive places" such as schools and some gov't buildings may restrict possession within them. This may be more controversial to members of this forum but I would hope that we can largely agree that there may be some places in which firearm possession isn't "necessary" and in which gov't can restrict such possession.
    No, I don't agree that there is any place were a firearm is not necessary. Schoolhouses, courthouses, police stations are all just as dangerous as the grocery store or the average workplace. You ever notice that all the 'sensitive places' are places were government employees work? In CA it is EVERY place that a government employee works, plus some.

    Forget the 'neccesity' of the firearm. I don't have to prove I'll need my gun to carry it. You have to convince me that the government has a legitamite right to stop me from carrying anywhere. There's no logic and no statistical data to prove that these 'gun-free zones' are any safer for their lack of guns.

    They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.
    I couldn't disagree more. ALL guns are dangerous. So, all a gun has to be is unusual to be restricted. I like unusual guns. I know a guy that has an old flint-lock musket; it's my favorite gun to shoot and it's the only one like it I've seen.

    So, what constitutes unusual? This is a slippery slope to tread.

    OK, forget the semantics. I want to own the most lethal and most unusual firearms I can find. What gives anybody the right to stop me?


    I apologize for the rant here, but it just steams me when the people claiming to be on the side of gun rights are so happy with the sink-hole we're trying to dig our rights out of.

    WAKE UP! The right to keep and bear arms serves one purpose more important than all others: being able to violently overthrow a tyranical government. Gonna be a lot harder to do that when we're limited to weapons that aren't 'dangerous.'
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.
    There is no such thing as a "dangerous weapon". No more than there is such a thing as a dangerous hammer, or a dangerous screwdriver.

    There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous people who happen to haveweapons.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    I think the question of Incorporation has already been settled for California.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    The California SC has not had this issue before it as far as I know. The NRA's suites against Chicago, San Fran, and three other Illinois cities will address incorporation soon enough.

    The Art. 3 Sec.1 route will only help us once the Fed Const. 2nd A. Rights have been fleshed out at the Fed level (IMO)and incorp. should be over by that time. I see loaded open carry, with 12031 and 626.9 gone or diminshed to effect only prohibited persons,within 5 years (hopefully sooner).

    The NRA and like minded organizations will need money and supportso give a little more then usual!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1607 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    I think the question of Incorporation has already been settled for California.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    The California SC has not had this issue before it as far as I know. The NRA's suites against Chicago, San Fran, and three other Illinois cities will address incorporation soon enough.

    The Art. 3 Sec.1 route will only help us once the Fed Const. 2nd A. Rights have been fleshed out at the Fed level (IMO)and incorp. should be over by that time. I see loaded open carry, with 12031 and 626.9 gone or diminshed to effect only prohibited persons,within 5 years (hopefully sooner).

    The NRA and like minded organizations will need money and supportso give a little more then usual!
    Look at the examples I provided.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    sjalterego wrote:
    I'm not sure why people are unhappy with the message that the 2A is an individual right but it has limits. Every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits.
    I'm not sure why people are happy with that message. Does it make it better to know that every other right outlined in the constitution is subject to trampling? Not to me. "...shall not be infringed" is very specific and concise. If the founders wanted there to be exceptions, the would have used different wording, like "shall not be unreasonably infringed"... like the did with 'unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th Amendment.
    They affirmed that felons and mentally ill may be restricted from possessing firearms. I hope this isn't controversial.
    This is controversial. Felons are not always violent. Once time is served, their debt to society is paid... yet they lose their rights permanently. If they're so dangerous they can't own a gun they should be in jail. If they truly are dangerous telling them not to buy a gun won't stop them illegally or just stealing one.

    Mental illness is another shady area. Again, if they're that dangerous lock them up. Again, telling them they can't buy one won't stop them from getting one if they're motivated. The most dangerous part of this deprivation of rights is the potential for abuse. It's far too easy to say someone is mentally ill without really proving it. I'm sure there's a few LEOs that think I'm mentally ill because I think it's a good idea to OC. Way too much potential for abuse here...
    They affirmed that "sensitive places" such as schools and some gov't buildings may restrict possession within them. This may be more controversial to members of this forum but I would hope that we can largely agree that there may be some places in which firearm possession isn't "necessary" and in which gov't can restrict such possession.
    No, I don't agree that there is any place were a firearm is not necessary. Schoolhouses, courthouses, police stations are all just as dangerous as the grocery store or the average workplace. You ever notice that all the 'sensitive places' are places were government employees work? In CA it is EVERY place that a government employee works, plus some.

    Forget the 'neccesity' of the firearm. I don't have to prove I'll need my gun to carry it. You have to convince me that the government has a legitamite right to stop me from carrying anywhere. There's no logic and no statistical data to prove that these 'gun-free zones' are any safer for their lack of guns.
    They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.
    I couldn't disagree more. ALL guns are dangerous. So, all a gun has to be is unusual to be restricted. I like unusual guns. I know a guy that has an old flint-lock musket; it's my favorite gun to shoot and it's the only one like it I've seen.

    So, what constitutes unusual? This is a slippery slope to tread.

    OK, forget the semantics. I want to own the most lethal and most unusual firearms I can find. What gives anybody the right to stop me?


    I apologize for the rant here, but it just steams me when the people claiming to be on the side of gun rights are so happy with the sink-hole we're trying to dig our rights out of.

    WAKE UP! The right to keep and bear arms serves one purpose more important than all others: being able to violently overthrow a tyranical government. Gonna be a lot harder to do that when we're limited to weapons that aren't 'dangerous.'
    Does it make it better to know that every other right outlined in the constitution is subject to trampling? Not to me. "...shall not be infringed" is very specific and concise.

    Why is it trampling b/c there is a limit. The 1A states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    If read literally I could establish a religion that calls for all virgins to be bound and delivered to my house for ravishing. Any law that prohibits me from doing so prevents me from freely exercising my "religion". The S.Ct. has ruled that type of interpretation is not valid. Likewise if read literally I should be free to "speak" anytime and anywhere I want. Nobody is arguing that we should be free to stand outside our neighbor's house and scream obscenities at 2:00 a.m. If the people have an absolute right to peaceably assemble can any "group" of 2 or more people "assemble" in the middle of a bridge and block traffic anytime they want?

    I agree with you that blanket prohibitions against felons ever being allowed to acquire guns may be too harsh and that the mentally ill should not be prohibited from possessing guns unless actually dangerous or if they have been successfully treated etc. But are you seriously taking the position that the 2A is SO absolute that even convicted felons are allowed to possess firearms while in prison? Or that a person who is absolutely insane and receiving messages from Satan to "kill them all" can't be prevented from possessing a firearm? Simply recognizing that the right is NOT absolute shouldn't be anissue there has to be a limit. The problem is where the line is drawn, not the fact that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Sure there is always danger that the exceptions will swallow the rule but I can't believe you think there is absolutely NO exception to the right of "the people" to "keep and bear" arms.

    I couldn't disagree more. ALL guns are dangerous. So, all a gun has to be is unusual to be restricted. I like unusual guns. I know a guy that has an old flint-lock musket; it's my favorite gun to shoot and it's the only one like it I've seen.

    So, what constitutes unusual? This is a slippery slope to tread.

    OK, forget the semantics. I want to own the most lethal and most unusual firearms I can find. What gives anybody the right to stop me?

    Look at the examples I listed. You are talking about "guns". The 2A talks about "arms". Arms can be read to include many things other than "guns". Are you saying the 2A gives you the right to own a cruise missile or some other military ordinance.

    I agree that all firearms are potentially dangerous, after all that is their basic point and that the word "unusual" wasn't the best choice Scalia could have made.

    But putting aside "semantics" the basic premise of Scalia's statement was that finding a 2A individual right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't end the matter but that the Court will in future have to define what "arms" are included within the right and the extent to which they may be "kept" and borne. Just b/c I call my backpack nuclear bomb that I bought off of e-Bay from that nice Russian arms dealer an "arm" doesn't mean the 2A will protect my right to possess it. That is an extreme example but a line will have to be drawn somewhere. Where do you think the line should be drawn?

    Should individuals be allowed to possess:

    a nukes

    b conventional warheads/bombs

    c rocket/missile delivery systems

    dartillery

    e the 30mm GAU -8/A Avenger Gatling gun found on the A-10 Thunderbolt

    f the GE M134 minigun

    g an M60

    h an M16?

    Me personally I don't want my neighbors to have anything on a-f.G makes my uncomfortable but I'm not ruling it out. H I'm pretty much okay with.



  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Of course there are exceptions to rights. However, your analogy of ravishing virgins as protected religious activity is flawed. The test of what is or is not an exception to a right is this: "does it violate the Zero Agression Principle?"

    If the activity in question requires you to initiate agression against another, then it is not a right.

    Let's apply this to weapons. If I lawfully obtain a firearm (let's say it is that gatling gun on your list) from a willing seller, have I initiated agression? No. If you come over to my house and take my gatling gun away at gunpoint (more likely one would have the police do this for them), who is initiating agression? I would say it's ther person kicking down my door (or paying their local Thugs'n'Badges, Inc to do it for them).

    If you aren't familiar with it, I highly recommend reading up on the Zero Agression Principle. It is my moral guide in life, and is the only fair way to judge human interaction.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    Well so far as I know the Zero Aggression Policy isn't on anybody's list of tools for Constitutional Interpretation however good it may be as a guide to individual conduct.

    Certainly my example was over the top. But I'm sure I can construct numerous examples that don't violate your Zero Aggression standard of review.

    My basic point was in response to your comments that the Heller decision was worse than a disappointment because it held that the "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    I just don't get that line of reasoning. Every constitutional "right" has limits. Essentially all the court did was reassure people that holding there is an individual right didn't mean every single gun law was going to be invalidated.

    While I am happy with the decision, I predict that as the 2A is fleshed out in additional cases etc. we will NOT get everything or even most of what we want. However we are a lot better off today with at least some enforceable constitutional limit on what government can do to restrict our ability to "keep and bear" arms. In that sense I share your pessimism (probably to a lesser extent) but in deciding the particular issues before it the S.Ct. did all we could have reasonably expected.

    If you were expecting MORE from this decision

    Really, the only standard for gun control set by this case is that the state cannot completely ban handguns and cannot require a gun to be kept locked at alll times. That's not much... and I don't see how that's going to be much help to CA.

    I don't see it helping Open Carry in the least... which is all the more reason we need to keep doing it.



    Then I think you were overly optomistic. Nothing in the case involoved a request to carry that was denied by gov't. I certainlya gree with and commend your belief that we need to "keep on doing it" and pushing other efforts to expand the recognitin of our "rights".



    As others have said it was a baby step and nothing more.






  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    sjalterego wrote:
    I'm not sure why people are unhappy with the message that the 2A is an individual right but it has limits.* Every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits.
    I'm not sure why people are happy with that message.* Does it make it better to know that every other right outlined in the constitution is subject to trampling?* Not to me.* "...shall not be infringed" is very specific and concise.* If the founders wanted there to be exceptions, the would have used different wording, like "shall not be unreasonably infringed"... like the did with 'unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th Amendment.

    They affirmed that felons and mentally ill may be restricted from possessing firearms.* I hope this isn't controversial.
    This is controversial.* Felons are not always violent.* Once time is served, their debt to society is paid... yet they lose their rights permanently.* If they're so dangerous they can't own a gun they should be in jail.* If they truly are dangerous telling them not to buy a gun won't stop them illegally or just stealing one.

    Mental illness is another shady area.* Again, if they're that dangerous lock them up.* Again, telling them they can't buy one won't stop them from getting one if they're motivated.* The most dangerous part of this deprivation of rights is the potential for abuse.* It's far too easy to say someone is mentally ill without really proving it.* I'm sure there's a few LEOs that think I'm mentally ill because I think it's a good idea to OC.* Way too much potential for abuse here...

    They affirmed that "sensitive places" such as schools and some gov't buildings may restrict possession within them.* This may be more controversial to members of this forum but I would hope that we can largely agree that there may be some places in which firearm possession isn't "necessary" and in which gov't can restrict such possession.
    No, I don't agree that there is any place were a firearm is not necessary.* Schoolhouses, courthouses, police stations are all just as dangerous as the grocery store or the average workplace.* You ever notice that all the 'sensitive places' are places were government employees work?* In CA it is EVERY place that a government employee works, plus some.

    Forget the 'neccesity' of the firearm.* I don't have to prove I'll need my gun to carry it.* You have to convince me that the government has a legitamite right to stop me from carrying anywhere.* There's no logic and no statistical data to prove that these 'gun-free zones' are any safer for their lack of guns.

    They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted.* This should be obvious and not controversial.*
    I couldn't disagree more.* ALL guns are dangerous.* So, all a gun has to be is unusual to be restricted.* I like unusual guns.* I know a guy that has an old flint-lock musket; it's my favorite gun to shoot and it's the only one like it I've seen.

    So, what constitutes unusual?* This is a slippery slope to tread.

    OK, forget the semantics.* I want to own the most lethal and most unusual firearms I can find.* What gives anybody the right to stop me?


    I apologize for the rant here, but it just steams me when the people claiming to be on the side of gun rights are so happy with the sink-hole we're trying to dig our rights out of.

    WAKE UP!* The right to keep and bear arms serves one purpose more important than all others: being able to violently overthrow a tyranical government.* Gonna be a lot harder to do that when we're limited to weapons that aren't 'dangerous.'
    +1

    Right on the money, as (almost) always. I agree with all of your points, and I would like to point out that with a government that tries to make every citizen a "felon" for things as trivial as traffic infractions, I believe it is time to restore rights to felons. The practice of denying voting rights to felons is, in my opinion, particularly dangerous.

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    Well so far as I know the Zero Aggression Policy isn't on anybody's list of tools for Constitutional Interpretation however good it may be as a guide to individual conduct.
    I disagree with your assertion that " the Zero Aggression Policy isn't on anybody's list of tools for Constitutional Interpretation." The Zero Agression Principle is on my list of tools for interpreting the Constitution (along with anything else that needs interpreting). So, I'll assume you mean it isn't the standard in the 'justice' system. This is my point exactly. It should be the standard, as it is the most just standard.

    Certainly my example was over the top. But I'm sure I can construct numerous examples that don't violate your Zero Aggression standard of review.
    I doubt it. Feel free to try.


    My basic point was in response to your comments that the Heller decision was worse than a disappointment because it held that the "2A is an individual right, but the state can infringe on it."

    I just don't get that line of reasoning. Every constitutional "right" has limits. Essentially all the court did was reassure people that holding there is an individual right didn't mean every single gun law was going to be invalidated.
    My point is that every firearm law on the books is invalidated by the US Constitution. No matter how many judges disagree with me the US Constitution is clear: shall not be infringed.

    Not good enough for you? OK, to hell with the US Constitution; let's apply the Zero Agression Principle. Remember when you said you could probably provide numerous examples? Here's your chance. Tell me who's rights I'm violating if I:
    • Carry a loaded firearm
    • Carry a firearm as I drive past an elementary school
    • Carry a firearm while at a parent-teacher conference in a classroom
    • Carry a firearm in a courtroom
    • Carry a concealed weapon without asking a bureaucrat's permission first
    • Buy a handgun without clearing a background check
    • Buy a handgun without waiting 10 days to actually receive the firearm
    • Own a magazine with 11-round capacity
    • Own a fully automatic weapon
    • Own a chain-fed weapon
    • Own a grenade
    I bet the only answers you will think of will have to do with offending my neighbors' sensibilities. An unreasonable fear of weapons is no excuse to violate my rights. A reasonable fear is not an excuse to violate my rights. You don't have a right to not be offened or scared. If I'm not violating your rights then you have no right to point a gun at me (or pay someone else to do it) to force me to stop what I'm doing.

    ...If you were expecting MORE from this decision


    ...Then I think you were overly optomistic.

    As others have said it was a baby step and nothing more.
    As I said before, I am not surprised, just disappointed. I agree it is a baby step, and I don't think baby steps this small are cause for as much celebration as I'm seeing. In fact, I think it sends the wrong message to be so happy about such slight a win. It shows just how desperately the win was wanted/needed. Reacting with disgust sends the strong message that "this is not enough."

    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    But putting aside "semantics" the basic premise of Scalia's statement was that finding a 2A individual right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't end the matter but that the Court will in future have to define* what "arms" are included within the right and the extent to which they may be "kept" and borne.** Just b/c I call my backpack nuclear bomb that I bought off of e-Bay from that nice Russian arms dealer an "arm" doesn't mean the 2A will protect my right to possess it.* That is an extreme example but a line will have to be drawn somewhere.* Where do you think the line should be drawn?*

    Should individuals be allowed to possess:

    a nukes

    b conventional warheads/bombs

    c rocket/missile delivery systems

    d*artillery

    e the 30*mm GAU -8/A Avenger Gatling gun found on the A-10 Thunderbolt

    f the GE M134 minigun

    g an M60

    h an M16?

    Me personally I don't want my neighbors to have anything on a-f.**G makes my uncomfortable but I'm not ruling it out.* H I'm pretty much okay with.

    *
    Your entire argument is hinged upon the premise that regulation - beyond the protection of established rights - is effective in achieving arbitrary goals (like what - the reduction of backpack nuke attacks, or murders committed with the M134?). This premise is, in my opinion, flawed. The arguments I am going to use against your position are used against liberal gun-control advocates on a regular basis.

    First of all, the unjustified taking of another's life ("murder") is illegal, so what benefit does one obtain from having outlawed the various means of murder, be they handguns or backpack nukes?

    Ask yourselves the three following questions before you launch hyperbolic straw-man arguments:

    A: If a person were sufficiently motivated to detonate a "backpack nuke" (assuming such devices indeed exist), thus committing innumerable counts of murder, would a mere prohibition against the use, or even possession, of a backpack nuke then be sufficient to deter him from this action?

    B: Considering the existence of laws prohibiting the "intent to commit murder" - and the ease of arguing such intent based on, say, the possession of a nuclear weapon by a citizen with no possible use for one - would the lack of a "backpack nuke" prohibition impede the ability of law enforcement agencies to prevent backpack nuke attacks?

    C: Is there a backpack nuke problem is the U.S. today?

    I think if you think about these questions, you will realize the absurdity of using nuclear weapons in the argument against the unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

    As for any regulation, necessity and effectiveness should be the first consideration. From my perspective, your argument for the pointless, and doubtless ineffective, ban on nuclear weapons is as flawed as any gun control argument, if not more so.

    It's time to wake up and stop trusting in the inherent efficacy of the rule of law. Government, and law, are the big lie perpetrated on the human race by those with power for the purpose of maintaining their position. While I won't go so far as to advocate anarchy, what I will do is insist we do things like question our assumption that (a) law actually serves its intended purpose.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    To get a little more back on topic... I'm a little more optimistic now about the utility of Heller to the cause of repealing 12031.

    As posted on Calguns.net by yellowfin2:

    12031 is directly voided by Heller because it's an impairment to functional purpose of self defense.
    I read a case once where a CA court adressed this issue. It wasn't a RKBA case, but I think the analogy fits. The case said something to the effect of, 'the right to the press implies a right to distribution of newspapers as it is a functional purpose of the right to create newspapers.'

    I am hopeful that the CA courts will recognize that carrying a loaded firearm is a logical extension of the right to self defense. However, CA courts can torture logic with the best of them.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •