Posted on 10/23/2011 4:59:09 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
Does the Second Amendment protect anything other than a handgun in the home? When anti-gun laws are challenged in court, should judges uphold repressive ordinances like the District of Columbia’s gun licensing scheme, which forces applicants to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours just to buy an ordinary rifle? These are the questions being fought in the courts right now, in cases backed by the NRA. What answers the courts will provide are far from certain. The ultimate answers will depend on whether or not the next generation of federal judges is appointed by a President who values the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at davekopel.org ...
It clearly shows that a single vote on the Supreme Court could result in our Second Amendment Rights being restricted to single shot pistols in the home coupled with outrageous licensing and registration fees and paperwork.
Well, it was plain to see that if given ANY leeway in enforcement of this ruling, and that if no penalties to any agency or entity in this enforcement were to not comply with the ruling...
Nothing much is going to happen to correct this issue anytime soon...
All in the name of NOT rocking the boat and upsetting the liberal progressives in this country...
I look at it this way...You do not have to live in D.C., it is a small place surrounded by some fairly amiable states that do respect and understand the issues of individual, unalienable rights of its citizens...If you work there, unfortunately you take your chances...I don’t like those odds for myself and for others in that situation...
IIRC, when the decision came to a 5-4 split, that, to me, was NOT a resounding victory in my opinion...
Here it is a while later, and we still have problems implementing and enforcing the ruling...
I say it is a victory for the opposition...
Bottom line: I and many others still have our weapons...And if it ever came down to an outright ban and confiscation...
There are going to be a whole gaggle of people very unhappy trying to pick up any appreciable amount of our bang-sticks...
That will be a fact...
Couple that with the fact that the majority made clear that restrictions on certain types of firearms is still allowable as well as "reasonable" restrictions on places where you can excercise your Second Amendment rights (schools), the decision was gutted and opened-up for liberal shenanigans.
I said this on the day Heller was decided (you can find the posts here on FR) that the decision was not a victory because it could easily result in only allowing single-shot pistols in the home.
The key is putting great judges on the the SCOTUS. That will not happen with a second term of Obama.
Apparently to the COA in the District of Columbia it is....
Yup, and all it takes is a SCOTUS who refuses to hear the case to keep such decision on the books.
Unlke the premature celebrators of Heller, some of us realized such a decision takes decades to be given breadth and limits. Without a conservative SCOTUS majority, Heller would result in the harshest restriction of our 2A Rights.
bttt
I’m bored with this judicial dithering about a clear, concise, simple Constitutional ammendment. I despise this constant attempt to get around its simple meaning by a bunch of leftists who have no place being on the bench at all.
I am, however, ready to SHOOT—if necessary to preserve my (our) rights.
At any time in the past the U.S. Supreme Court could have ruled that "arms" are defined as single-shot weapons. But that decision would have only applied to state militia weapons.
After Heller, that decision now would apply to everyone. They have already decided (in the D.C. case) that "keep" means "keep in your home", "bear" means "bear in your home", and "arms" means "handguns".
With a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds.
The right is to KEEP and bear arms. Clearly a tank can be kept. Just like cannons or cannon armed ships could be and were owned by individuals at the time the second amendment was written.
I think Kopel, while being realistic as to what a Court would find, restricts the meaning beyond what was understood by the founders.
It's all about prior restraint. The first amendment does not allow for it, and neither does the second. But both allow for punishing those who misuse the right. To be charged with Conspiracy one must take some action in towards actually carrying out some illegal act. Just talking about it doesn't count.
If the second amendment were enforced in that manner, you could have your tank and ammo for the cannon, but you couldn't fire it in the neighborhood, (endangering others) and you couldn't drive it up on the steps of the Capital and blast away. Or run the tank over your neighbor's cars either.
To say Heller wasn’t a victory because it didn’t end the war against guns, is like saying Midway wasn’t a victory because the Japanese still had a navy. Heller was a legal turning point. The gun grabbers and no longer dismiss the 2A as an irrelevant anachronism, or only applying to state milita. Just because there are still battles ahead doesn’t make it any less a huge victory.
Even if it's completely ignored without repercussions?
DC is surrounded on three sides by Maryland and one side by GA. Maryland is NOT a gun friendly state. Md. is one of the few states that are still "may issue" rather than "shall issue". It also has a ban on various typed of firearms, and additional restrictions on full auto, etc. The only right that is fully exercised in the Peoples' Democracy of MD is teh right of the indolent to used the power of government to rob the hardworking.
Heller was the most important 2nd Amendment case ever to hit SCOTUS. Here’s why. It set the foundation for further cases. The big one, and the one that is only mentioned once in the majority opinion in Heller II from the COA is McDonald v. Chicago 2010.
That gave us incorporation. Like it or not, that decision had very far reaching ramifications that will take years to iron out.
If SCOTUS weakens the “scrutiny” for the 2nd Amendment or they apply different standards, example being the NFA tax being ruled Constitutional, doors will then swing open for attacks on other enumerated Rights. Again, if the NFA is ruled Constitutional, then a revisit to the issue of poll taxes will happen.
SCOTUS is walking through a mine field created by themselves, their predecessors and Congress.
Something else to consider... the COA in this case stepped way outside the bounds of the questions at hand. References to “machine gun” and the machine gun ban are on every page of that decision. They know it’s a dead duck and they are trying to find a way to justify it Constitutionally. In their efforts to protect it, they have made it extremely vulnerable. Their verbiage in their decision has all but guaranteed a SCOTUS review.
Celebration of Heller wasn’t premature, it was appropriate. The issue now is the doubting Thomas’s that have no clue what is going on legally on the 2nd Amendment. Nothing that has happened so far with Heller II was unexpected. There’s a lot more coming. Heller III is in the works as is Heller IV.
My recommendation would be to stop panicking, help out by donating to the Heller Foundation and volunteer to spread the word and work at gun shows and other venues and to help organize in your area.
Well said. We have more than enough naysayers and defeatists. It is easy to use convenient excuses to do nothing. The fact is that we are winning on this front, and we need to keep on pushing, and educating, and working elections to gain the widest possible victory.
The facts, the Constitution, and the culture are on our side.
Amen. Plus, that idiot with Occupy LA showed us exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for. He said that they’d have to use violence to achieve their goals.
Remember kids, that is the same kind of libtard that wants to take your right to own a gun and defend yourself away. He proved that the 2nd is a desperately needed Right and we must exercise it and protect it jealously.
Basically, it comes down to this... Ask the libtards if their disarmament agenda is worth dying for. I know that my right to self defense is worth killing or dying for. I won’t take the first violent action but don’t be surprised when mine is the last of the confrontation.
“I know that my right to self defense is worth killing or dying for.”
Agreed....... Molon Labe....... The ancient motto of every free man who intends to remain free. There are many in this nation that know and appreciate the ideal expressed so long ago by Leonidas of Sparta when confronted by an evil tyrant.
May we always follow Leonidas’ lead........
Did you mean “VA”...I think you did...
Thats really the only place, and yes MD is a bit of a pill to swallow, but MD is still a state that has “some” support for the Second Amendment...Not much, but enough to keep it off the really bad list...
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.