dc gun case victory?

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).

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.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

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

Click to expand...

+1



Liberty is the compelling state interest.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

imported post

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

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-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.

imported post

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

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.'

imported post

sjalterego wrote:

They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Look at the examples I provided.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

sjalterego wrote:

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.

Click to expand...

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.'

Click to expand...

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.

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.