DC v Heller - A Personal Perspective

03/21/08 | Pistolshot

[Pistolshot]

I've seen, read, and heard so many comments from the all-or-nothing crowd that makes me wonder whose side you are really on. The zealousness of some sound like the most vehement anti-gunner, except on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Take a deep breath, folks. It will be a long struggle, maybe one we leave to our children to carry on, but our first steps have been taken.

[rellimpank]

-—good post—

[Pistolshot]

Ping please?

[deuteronlmy232]

Thanks, good summarization for us non legal types.

[Joe Brower]

I have added the the FR "banglist" keyword to this thread.

It is my understanding that the primary argument in Heller is that the 2A is an individual right, not specifically the type of firearm.

[semantic]

As a Federal armed guard, Heller was the perfect poster boy to challenge the DC personal hand gun restrictions.

Assuming citizens successfully re-secure an individual right to armed self-defense subject to strict scrutiny, then a hunt will be on to find a similar stellar candidate to challenge/establish/incorporate the militia clause.

My guess is it will be someone in the reserves (officer rank, Iraq veteran?) who resides in a state where he/she is banned from possessing the very weapon(s) he/she commands in a Nat'l Guard.

Machine guns are too limited - we need to re-establish the concept that the People form the militia and have pre-existing rights to possess sufficient firepower to both help in common defense and/or challenge a potentially tyrannical government.

[Lazamataz]

If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.

[Pistolshot]

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

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? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

[umgud]

I’d be happy if Heller just confirms the individual right.
From there, we can start defining what is “infringement.”

[Leisler]

You don't know your law. At this level, it is a matter of Constitutional rights and power, and not of a particular law. That was settled at the lower Federal courts, which threw out the D.C. ordnances.

Anyways, the 2nd Amendment is not about crooks, or burglars, or hunting bears. It is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces.

[Pistolshot]

Sorry, you don't know the SCOTUS.

This decision will be as narrow as the cert described. Answering the question that was presented and dealing only with that question. Does the District of Columbia have the right to ban an entire class of weapons. Specifically handguns.

[Joe Brower]

OK, Pistolshot, I don't usually flag my private list for vanities, but your question is obviously a good one.

[Pistolshot]

Thanks. I appreciate the comments from bang-list.

[Alberta's Child]

If there aren’t handguns in vending machines by Thursday, we’ve lost it all.

ROFL.

[Hawthorn]

> the 2nd Amendment is not about crooks, or burglars, or hunting bears. It is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces <

I can't entirely agree with you. I say the 2nd Amendment not only protects the people's ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, but it also recognizes and strengthens the individual citizen's God-given right of self-defense -- a right that pre-dated the U. S. Constitution.

Therefore, in my opinion, and in addtion to the other aspects of its original understanding, A-2 most certainly IS about crooks and burglars and bears -- and even those hostile "Indians" mentioned by Justice Kennedy during oral argument.

[Centurion2000]

My guess is it will be someone in the reserves (officer rank, Iraq veteran?) who resides in a state where he/she is banned from possessing the very weapon(s) he/she commands in a Nat'l Guard.

That would be any a National Guard Soldier in CA, IL, NY or any other state that band the posession of automatic weapons. All M-16's are select fire.

[beltfed308]

Good post. I agree that the ruling will only be ruled very narrowly to address the DC ban. The greatest win IMO is that it sets the brady crowd and others back to the stone age as the collective argument they have propagated for decades will be totally destroyed.

It will clearly take one step at a time to get back to our roots. That is exactly what the other side has patiently done for years and that has brought us to where we are now.

I am encouraged that Heller will win.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

SCOTUS of the last several decades have been very loathe to issue broad rulings. This SCOTUS is no exception.

I would love to be able to install a happy switch on my ARs with this forthcoming ruling. It won’t happen, as you pointed out. They will only answer the question posed. Another case (or several) will have to brought forward to address the rest.

[ctdonath2]

It is not about NFA ‘34 It is not about GCA ’68. It is not about Hughes.

It _IS_, however, about re-establishing core principles which, if applied honestly and correctly in Heller, will make it clear those are void as well. Further cases may be needed to take those down, but it will be a matter of enforcing the final Heller verdict instead of battling them independently. There's a reason 922(o) was a frequent theme in oral arguments and the SG's brief: much as they want to issue a narrow verdict, they can't overturn the DC ban without either establishing solid grounds to toss other bans/restrictions, or gutting the 2nd entirely.