Posted on 03/21/2008 6:29:24 AM PDT by Pistolshot
I have spent a lot of time surfing some of the other discussion threads on the hearing before the US Supreme Court of DC v Heller. A lot of comments have been about the testimony about machine guns, rifles, Miller, and a host of zealousness that makes gun-owners look as bad as the most strident anti-gunner. It does NOT serve us well.
Heller is about handguns, and the ownership, use and ability to protect ones self in the home.
It is not about NFA ‘34
It is not about GCA ’68.
It is not about Hughes.
It is narrowly defined by the SCOTUS to handguns.
Now, there are pie-in-the-sky zealots who want everything put in order, the way it was, in one-shot. The bad news is that is NOT going to happen.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, lets look at what we can get.
We get a definitive ruling that the restrictive law of DC is in direct violation of the individual right to own a firearm, specifically a handgun, and that the restrictive DC law is overturned, affirming the lower courts decision. The DC City Council will have to come up with something that will pass judicial muster. Most likely a complete reversal of the 'secure' weapons in the home provisions along with opening of registration of handguns in the city, as the law read before the Council banned all handguns.
We get the perception from the courts that they would like to correct Miller. Justice Kennedy – “Miller may be deficient.” The translation here is : “Bring us a case we can rule on.”
Heller opens this door.
What else do we get?
We get the chance to find the correct case to bring to the justices to roll back Hughes, which will roll back the restrictions on new machine guns.
We get the chance to bring the correct case to roll back GCA ’68 and the importation of surplus weapons
All of these are dependent on how the Supremes rule in Heller, but it will not signify that a total revolution in gun control and gun laws has taken place
It only means we have won one battle, and there are many, many more to come.
The right of ‘the people’ has been taken incrementally, a bit at a time. The only way will get that right completely restored is in the same fashion.
Incrementally, one piece at a time.
Actually, for the last year, I have been studying naval history.
That is exactly why I am rather upset when the SCOTUS is trying to define the term ARMS in a way that could prohibit handguns, while ignoring the historical fact that American citizens could and did outfit ship of war.
I believe that once we begin reviewing the Militia Act, along with historical letters of marque, we're going to find that a graduated registration requirement will not be that unreasonable.
I don't have to remind everyone here that 'well-regulated' does not mean regulated in the current sense. Rather, it means that one is proficient in carrying out whatever militia duties they may have.
That's why it will not be necessary to register machine guns, since, in lieu of current prohibitions, they are simply common arms.
However, I wouldn't have a problem with Bill Gates registering his aircraft carrier, along with other various hi-tech billionaire pilots being checked out on their F-22s to make sure they can adequately support/complement standing air forces.
If the SCOTUS followed the Constitution, I would have no problem with a ruling that every adult citizen must be trained in the use of arms once a month.
I find it hard to believe 300 Million United States Citizens would come to such an agreement.
"...the SCOTUS was hired to support the people.."
Too general to be accurate. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
If the people do not like a judicial outcome they have the responsibility to effect a change in the Constitution, the Law, or the government so they can have a different judicial outcome.
"...since we the people are the government..."
I wouldn't word it quite that way but it's good enough that I can say I'm glad somebody else seems to understand.
What part of the American revolution against the British did you not understand?
Thanks for the thoughts.
>Prediction: we’ll be able to buy new full autos, or install new happy switches for existing semi-autos, within 5 years.
My goal: let’s get 1 million or 5 million full autos into the hands of the citizenry. When you don’t have “blood in the streets” the level of unease about them - and other guns - will subside substantially. Also, the more full autos out there, the less likely that some tyrant-wannabee is going to go for the brass ring (and, after all, isn’t that the WHOLE POINT of the 2nd Amendment?). Once there are literally millions of full autos in public hands, I can see an a new law repealing import bans of all types - what would be the point?<
When do you suggest that I buy shares in the ammunition manufacturers?
Did you forget that Scots and Catholics were prohibited from keeping and bearing arms under British laws?
Did you forget why our Constitution stated that the people of the United States will always have the right to keep and bear arms, and that is something which the government can never take away?
I don't think that the processing sites mean anything. Uncle lives in DC, and thus all agencies do as well. Besides, it is my understanding that every case involving the US government gets heard in the DC circuit.
...but I'm also wondering if Kennedy's statement “Miller may be deficient” isn't more ominous than welcoming. He plainly noted a potential for a decoupling of the 'militia' phrase from 'the people' phrase and asked if there were two rights there or just one. He might have it in mind that Miller didn't have recourse to a defense under the Second Amendment because he wasn't in 'the militia', never mind how short or long his shotgun was.
This could end up as a split decision: The people have rights to civilian weapons, the 'militia' has rights to militia weapons like your post-'86 M16.
I agree with some of your questions about Kennedy's motives/thoughts. However, the militia of the Revolutionary War and as it existed after the passage of the 1792 Militia Act had weapons that were the equal of those of the armed forces. In fact, the militia was conceived of as the true armed might of the nation, and the hope among most of the framers was that we'd have a small professional army (one not capable of taking over or significantly influencing the government or even any state) as a core used to train a mass militia (one that provided its own weapons, by the way) in the event of invasion or insurrection. That's what happened in 1812, 1848 and the Civil War. One could also say that it happened in 1898 vs. Spain (TR's Rough Riders largely trained and outfitted itself, with vets of the small professional army brought on to train the volunteers). In WW1 and subsequently, soldiers generally didn't bring their own weapons into battle or training (with, of course, a few exceptions).
I don't know how you can uncouple the militia from the people, not looking at the historical record and the writings of the Founders. Here's a pertinent example:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. George Mason
This is, I believe, the basis for the Miller Court not even examining whether Miller was part of the militia - because it didn't occur to them to do so, because the answer was so obvious. Kind of like a finding that the cloudless daytime sky is some shade of blue.
Also consider that full autos have NEVER been banned under federal law, and that there are currently some 160,000 full autos in civilian hands without a daily (or even yearly) massacre. I don't think that the Court can ratify the principle that the military is supposed to have a permanent legal advantage over the people from which it is drawn, and against whom a potential tyrant would use it. Besides, the 2nd Amendment says "ARMS" - which is plainly, in view of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause and our history, not limited to hand-held firearms.
Unfortunately, I live in CA and all handguns must be registered.
No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
When they become stand-alone companies. Now, as part of large conglomerates, even a massive increase in ammo production doesn't affect the large corp.'s bottom line very much.
But I do get your point. Buy just before the Heller decision is announced, sell the moment the first case challenging 922(o) is filed.
Have private sales been forbidden?
Sir, the government of California has abused their authority granted by the citizens of the State. By definition, those laws are not legally binding upon you.
What have you done personally to protect the rights of not only yourself, but of every other citizen of the State of California?
“What part of the American revolution against the British did you not understand?”
What part of “...I’m glad somebody else seems to understand” did you not understand? Was it the part where I was agreeing with you?
All private sales, including sales at gunshows must go thru a FFL dealer along with a 10 day waiting period. Some inter-family transfers can be done with out a dealer or a 10 day wait.
Since you and I seem to be on the same wavelength here, try this one on for size:
In my state's Federal circuit court, we have the Stewart Ruling -- United States v. Stewart (2003). In Stewart the 9th Circuit Court held that homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause since they did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The ruling was appealed to SCOTUS in 2005 and they vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, remanding the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 2005.
SCOTUS ruled in Raich that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction.
Guess who the petitioner for US vs. Stewart is? Solicitor General Paul D. Clement.
Since 2004, there has been no resolution on US vs. Stewart.
Ponder this for awhile and tell me what you think it means.
Member of NRA, GOA and others. Contribute greatly to RKBA orgs. Prolific letter writter to my reps, work to get petitions signed, etc. I'm but one man.
You have become a subject of the State living under the rule of Communism.
We need to hope that the Heller decision is very strong on just how "fundamental" that self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms is. The accepted fiction in Kalifornia that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms could take quite a tumble soon.
As others have pointed out, it isn't going to seem very Constitutional to protect with strict scrutiny the penumbral emanation which permits the killing of the unborn and then deny that same level of protection to the right to life through self-defense enabled by the right to keep and bear arms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.