• 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.

VA-ALERT: Alan Gura to address next VCDL meeting!

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

VA-ALERT: Alan Gura to address next VCDL meeting!



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Van Cleave
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:24 PM
Subject: VA-ALERT: Alan Gura to address next VCDL meeting!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's Gun Dealer Legal Defense Fund -- help fight Mayor Bloomberg's
scheme to cripple Virginia firearms dealers. See:
http://www.vcdl.org/index.html#DefenseFund
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Alan Gura to address VCDL meeting in July
2. More thoughts on Heller decision


*****************************************
1. Alan Gura to address VCDL meeting in July
*****************************************

Mark your calendars!

Alan Gura, the Virginia based attorney who headed up the District of
Columbia vs Heller case that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled on, has
graciously agreed to address the VCDL meeting on Thursday, July 17th!

Let's pack the house! This should be a very informative meeting,
giving you the rare chance to ask Alan some questions about DC vs
Heller directly.

The meeting room can hold 150 people, so be sure to come early.

The meeting is being held at the Mason Government Center in Annandale
and will be called to order at 8:00 PM.

Fellowship begins at 7:30 PM.

The meeting is open to the public, so bring your friends and family.

After the meeting, fellowship will continue at a local restaurant. If
you plan on carrying at the restaurant, Virginia law will require that
you open carry.

Location of the meeting can be found at:

http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html


*****************************************
2. More thoughts on Heller decision
*****************************************

A legal-beagle who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this analysis:

--

Philip,

Ok -- here are my thoughts on Heller. I only had time to skim the
dissents, but I did spend some time reading Justice Scalia's majority
opinion.

First, a bit about Justice Scalia. I know that VCDL folks are
skeptical of Harvard Law School grads (like Gov. Kaine), but Justice
Scalia is an HLS grad. He is also considered one of the most
conservative Justices on the Supreme Court and the main proponent of a
textualist or strict constructionist method for interpreting the
Constitution. In his opinions, he aims to look at how the Founders
understood the text of the Constitution when it was written, hence all
of the history in the opinion.

Second, because the decision is 5-4, with no concurring opinions,
there is no confusion as to the Court's holding. Sometimes in these
really controversial cases you end up with a plurality opinion, a
concurring opinion, and dissents. This can create confusion as to
which opinion controls. That will not be the case here. But, because
the Justices were so closely divided, it is unclear how future
challenges to gun laws will be decided.

Third, the opinion is narrow. Many Supreme Court observers have noted
that under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court
has taken to issuing more narrow opinions. That is certainly the case
with Heller. They only decide the question that Heller presented.
Therefore, the concise holding in the case (found on p. 64 of the slip
opinion) is "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home
violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against
rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of
immediate self-defense."

Fourth, the opinion does leave open some room for gun control, such as
limiting concealed carry or the carrying of firearms in schools or
government buildings. But, I believe that the Court's discussion of
these limits is dicta. The scope of Constitutional limitations on
Second Amendment rights will have to be determined by future cases.
Justice Scalia says as much on p. 63 of the slip opinion, "Justice
Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep
and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical
justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as
permissible. But since this case represents this Court's first in-
depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to
clarify the entire field, any more than Reynold v. United States, 98
U.S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area of law in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time
enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the
exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before
us." So, we don't know how the Court would rule on a conceal carry
law or on other gun control laws.

Fifth, not only does the opinion recognized an individual right in the
Second Amendment, but it finds that this right pre-existed the
Constitution. I think that this is significant. In fact, Justice
Scalia quotes Blackstone for the proposition that the "right of
resistance and self preservation" is a natural right. Slip op. at 20.

Sixth, as to the types of weapons that can be restricted under the
Second Amendment, p. 53 of the slip opinion offers the best insight
into the standard that the Court would use in evaluating specific
weapons restrictions. Justice Scalia writes, "We therefore read
Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

In conclusion, I believe that the opinion is a solid victory. There
will clearly be future cases that will flesh out the specifics of the
Second Amendment. Those cases, however, will have to be very
carefully structured to avoid cases that could result in bad court
opinions.

------

Someone else emailed me and pointed out that the Court wasn't
upholding DC's requirement to register guns because it wasn't asked if
such registration was unconstitutional, so it was left unaddressed.

------

Here is coverage from the Virginian-Pilot:

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/afte...look-next-move

After gun-rights ruling, both sides look to next move


By Joanne Kimberlin
The Virginian-Pilot
One key question in the nation’s gun debate now has an answer, but no
one expects it to end the argument.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment’s
“right to keep and bear arms” applies to private citizens – a practice
already observed in most parts of the country but never fully
protected until now.

Supporters of gun control have long argued that the Second Amendment
guarantees firearms to militia-type organizations only – yesterday’s
version of the National Guard.

Thursday was the first time that the high court has given its own
interpretation. The case stemmed from Washington, D.C.’s 32-year ban
on handguns within the city.

The justices split 5-4 on their decision – a reflection of the
nation’s near-even division when it comes to views on guns. While the
United States is the most heavily armed country in the world, with an
estimated 270 million firearms, surveys consistently indicate that
roughly half of all Americans don’t own a gun.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, wrote: “In my view,
there simply is no untouchable Constitutional right guaranteed by the
Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house … ”

The landmark ruling is the result of a lawsuit brought by security
guard Dick Heller against Washington, D.C. The district has the
strictest gun policy in the nation: Handguns are banned, and rifles
and shotguns must be unloaded and outfitted with trigger locks or
disassembled.

Heller said he lives in a high-crime part of town and applied for
permission to keep a handgun in his home to protect his family. When
turned down, he sued the city. Heller lost the first round, then won
on appeal. Lower courts have often disagreed on gun rights. Both
Heller and the district asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

Second Amendment cases have reached the Supreme Court before, but none
have zeroed in on the fundamental right of gun ownership, a question
that has fueled decades of fiery debate.

“This puts us on a solid rock,” said Philip Van Cleave, head of the
pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League. “It eliminates the other
side’s contention that this is not an individual right. This took a
whole lot of wind out of their sails.”

Ron Hyson, a gun owner from Virginia Beach, said he’s relieved. “This
was kind of a fence-sitter. The sad thing now is you’ll hear a whole
lot of nitpicking about it. We’ll be celebrating, but we’ll be
questioning what’s next.”

At the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, based in Washington, executive
director Josh Horwitz is pondering the same thing.

“We’ve got a bunch of unanswered questions,” he said. “But the reality
is that the idea that the federal government is going to come in and
ban guns is off the table. It probably always was.”

Horwitz said he takes heart in the fact that the justices left room
for “reasonable regulation” of firearms. They specifically cited laws
that bar felons and mentally ill people from owning guns, prohibit
weapons inside schools and other sensitive places, outlaw particularly
dangerous weapons, and regulate commercial sales.

“Now, it’s all about what’s reasonable and what isn’t,” Horwitz said.
“And it’s clear we have a wide swath of options. So I’ll go back to my
desk and pursue the policies I’ve always pursued. This doesn’t put an
end to the gun-control debate.”

Horwitz pointed out that because the district is not a state,
Thursday’s ruling does not automatically apply outside the city limits.

It’s only a matter of time before it does, said William Van Alstyne, a
professor and constitutional law expert at the College of William and
Mary.

Van Alstyne said similar bans in other cities and counties will now be
challenged and struck down. The National Rifle Association has already
said that it intends to file lawsuits in Chicago, several of its
suburbs and San Francisco.

“This case is to the Second Amendment what Roe vs. Wade was to
abortion,” he said. “That one didn’t settle all the questions, and
some people still don’t like it, but it was a watershed, like this one.”

Van Alstyne said the ruling’s “heat and volume” give the opinion added
weight – 150 pages of research and dissections of the amendment’s 27
words, broken down phrase by phrase. The justices explored historical
context and took into account how Americans spoke and wrote two
centuries ago, when the amendment was ratified.

“Some people might try to dismiss it by saying it doesn’t amount to
much, but that’s just wrong. This is serious business – a meaningful
opinion that will stand for the indefinite future.”

No one expects Virginia’s state laws to be affected. Attorney General
Bob McDonnell filed a brief with the court opposing the D.C. handgun
ban, joining 30 other states on Heller’s side.

“This is a tremendous victory for individual liberty and freedom,”
McDonnell said. “It ratifies what Virginia has always believed about
the Second Amendment.”


-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
***************************************************************************
 

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

Is this going to be a love fest or is somebody going to call him out on the gun licensing and registration he abdicated at oral arguments ? Will we hear the tired old refrain it was a strategy to get the fifth vote he already had?
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
Is this going to be a love fest or is somebody going to call him out on the gun licensing and registration he abdicated at oral arguments ? Will we hear the tired old refrain it was a strategy to get the fifth vote he already had?
I don't know, but I'll be there to find out!
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
Is this going to be a love fest or is somebody going to call him out on the gun licensing and registration he abdicated at oral arguments ? Will we hear the tired old refrain it was a strategy to get the fifth vote he already had?

I halfway agree with you, but to keep it in perspective, here's another way to put it:

Is this going to be a rude bitchfest where we bellyache or are we going to be cordial and at least thank him for winning the case? Will we hear the tired old argument about "I would never compromise and accept a small victory, I'd rather just lose everything in one shot"?
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I would be real dissapointed if we were less than celebratory when he speaks. Alan Gura has explained his rationale for arguing the way he did to my satisfaction, the only complaining I've heard since 6-26-08 is that it wasn't a 9-0 decision. Lets not pick open an old scab for no good reason.
 

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

This is way different then saying your ok with machine gun bans and Assault weapon bans. Those issues were not before the court and were hypothetical. The licensing was an issue before the court and one which the Court granted Cert. on. When asked to defend his position before the court which is what the court expected him to do, he basically told the court, "Thanks for letting me waste this courts time and effort and every one else's time and effort with an argument we were never prepared to defend. We were just kidding" The court answered in kind. We're not kidding, you waste our time and embarrass us, you will pay the price.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
This is way different then saying your ok with machine gun bans and Assault weapon bans. Those issues were not before the court and were hypothetical. The licensing was an issue before the court and one which the Court granted Cert. on.
More precisely, the issue before the Court wasn't whether licensing is constitutional, it was whether DC's refusal to grant Heller a license was constitutional.

DC has a licensing system in place; they just refuse to use it. The Court rightly noted that the only relief Heller sought was that DC issue him a license.

If I sue you because you park your car on my side of the property line, the court can't rule that you should also mow your yard.

The Court only ruled on the issue at cert.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Virginiaplanter wrote:
This is way different then saying your ok with machine gun bans and Assault weapon bans. Those issues were not before the court and were hypothetical. The licensing was an issue before the court and one which the Court granted Cert. on.
More precisely, the issue before the Court wasn't whether licensing is constitutional, it was whether DC's refusal to grant Heller a license was constitutional.

DC has a licensing system in place; they just refuse to use it. The Court rightly noted that the only relief Heller sought was that DC issue him a license.

If I sue you because you park your car on my side of the property line, the court can't rule that you should also mow your yard.

The Court only ruled on the issue at cert.
+1
 

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

I don't want to drag this out, only to suffice to say the the question presented included the constitutionality of the licensing provisions.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code
§§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 --
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals
who are not affiliated with any state-regulated
militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other
firearms for private use in their homes.


The question presented asks whether the licensing provision 22-4504(a) violates the Second Amendment. If he didn't think that it was unconstitutional he should have said so in his brief and not wasted the courts time.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

6-day reminder...VCDL Meeting is next Thursday, July 17.

OCDO going to meet at the 'secret handshake' location as usual? :)
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Now I want a Fuddruckers ostrich burger...
I've had their beef burger, and turkey burger, so I'm probably going to try the ostrich next :)
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

I presume the OC rendezvous at the super-secret location is still on? I plan to be there. May leave a little earlier from there to ensure I get a seat at the meeting itself.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

I plan on doing the same so I can pick a good seat. But I'll be at the pre-meetup location as well at the normal time.
 

Bundabar

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I had their ostrich burger about a week ago. IMO it'sa little morerubbery than beef andhas a slight game flavor likedeer or buffalo but overall it was pretty good!
 
Top