Posted on 05/08/2007 10:05:16 AM PDT by ozoneliar
It might take years, but the major benefits would be apparent after just a few cases. Once prosecutors realize that they will eventually be ineffective, they are going to quit taking the cases.
The courts have little direct ability to force legislatures to act, but they can make their displeasure felt if repeated attempts are made to enforce unConstitutional laws in their courts.
Problems can occur if lower courts attempt to undermine the decision of the higher courts. That would lengthen the time scale. Judge Moore thought that he was right in keeping certain items in his courthouse. I don't think he is a judge anymore. Perhaps he was right on the issue, but he was wrong about who was going to have the final say.
I didn’t say that they’d thought that far ahead. These are lefties we’re talking about here. They rarely think things through all the way, if they think at all. They react, and this is one of the ways they might react in.
I don't disagree that they may react that way. But the number of cases on the docket can multiply rapidly when people are confident of a win.
If, for example, DC drags their feet on putting in place a mechanism to register new handguns for home possession, the plaintiffs in Parker will have standing to ask the DC Circuit to enforce its decision. If there is a mechanism for registering such handguns, it would be difficult to permit the plaintiffs but exclude others.
If the DC Circuit should decide that things are bad enough, they just have to start awarding court costs to plaintiffs to be paid out of DC's coffers. That along with fines for contempt should do the job. People react differently when misbehavior has consequences.
By one vote. One vote counts!
It also ignored the fact that shotguns (short barrelled and otherwise) have been a weapon of war since the days of the blunderbuss, and continue to be in one form or another.
No need to get down on yourself. I would have responded no matter who you were posting to. I wanted to set the record straight.
Yes, this opinion may be overturned, if Parker is held to apply to the states.
Perhaps, though I doubt it. The California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act regulates a specific class of weaponry, an action the Parker court acknowledged was constitutional.
If the citizens of California are looking for individual RKBA protection, they need to amend their state constitutiuon. Looking to the second amendment to provide this protection is a waste of time.
Which is the point I constantly attempt to make -- what you call "an annoyance". Hey, Sarah Brady hates me too.
Thank you, but I took the lazy way and only cited recent 9th Circuit cases. There are many more.
"I’m curious... do you agree with the 9th Circuit?"
Well, whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Their opinions in these gun cases are out there for everyone to see, including the U.S. Supreme Court. If Parker is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, 9th Circuit court opinions will be looked at along with every other Circuit court.
The problem is that the odds are against us -- the 5th Circuit in Emerson and the DC Circuit in Parker claim individual right protection. The 1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 6th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 8th Circuit, 9th Circuit, 10th Circuit and 11th Circuit claim a collective right.
But to answer your question, no, I don't agree with the 9th Circuit. They take the extreme collective position -- that the right of the state to maintain effective state militias is protected, but that does not include individual rights protection.
True, but not directly.
If the lower court had found that short-barreled shotguns are useful to a Militia, then the National Firearms Act of 1934 would have been found unconstitutional (which was the opinion of the lower court). Mr. Miller then could possess that weapon as he would any other weapon.
Mr. Miller's membership in a state Militia (or non-membership) was never addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. They focused on a possible infringement of the weapon itself.
Perhaps, though I doubt it. The California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act regulates a specific class of weaponry, an action the Parker court acknowledged was constitutional.
From the decision at page 55-56 (may include scanning OCR errors):
“D.C. Code § 7-2502.02” prohibits the registration of a pistol not registered in the District by the applicant prior to 1976.(19) The District contends that since it only bans one type of firearm, “residents still have access to hundreds more,” and thus its prohibition does not implicate the Second Amendment because it does not threaten total disarmament. We think that argument frivolous. It could be similarly contended that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted. Once it is determined-as we have done-that handguns are “Arms” referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them. See Kerner, 107 S.E. at 225 (”To exclude all pistols ... is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of ... , ‘arms’ which the people are entitled to bear.”). Indeed, the pistol is the most preferred firearm in the nation to “keep” and use for protection of one’s home and family, See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J, CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 150, 182-83 (1995). And, as we have noted, the Second Amendment’s premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting).”
http://www.gurapossessky.com/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf
Very true. But there's short barreled and there's sawed-off. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (under which Mr. Miller was charged) defined "short barreled" as greater than 18". Less than that was considered to be an easily concealed weapon used only by criminals.
At the time of Mr. Miller's trial, the shortest shotgun used by the military (in WWI) was 20". Perhaps shorter shotguns were used in other conflicts (the Civil War, for example), but these were not military issue and were not used by the average soldier.
I think you need to read page 42 and 43 of the Parker opinion. (Begin with “on the question...”).
(Please try to find a field where you have a clue about the facts.)
"Since we are talking about bans, not regulation (nice attempt at diversion)"
Prohibiting all rifles, for example, would be a ban, yes. Prohibiting certain types of rifles would be regulating. The California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act regulates a specific class of weaponry.
Personally, I'd like to see a Miller-type challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 as violating the second amendment by infringing on Militia-type weapons.
Laughably absurd? The Parker court didn't think it was absurd -- actually, they claimed it was an alternative argument:
"The government’s weapons-based argument provided the Miller Court with an alternative means to uphold the National Firearms Act even if the Court disagreed with the government’s collective right argument."
alternative: a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities, b. A situation presenting such a choice, c. Either of these possibilities.
You accuse me of being an annoyance and a troll, then you post this. Who's annoying? Who's a troll?
Tell me what facts I got wrong.
Your post does not refute my point.
You specifically cited the Parker opinion as supporting your point. If the Parker court agreed with you that the argument by the feds was "laughably absurd", they didn't say so on the pages you cited.
Actually, they described it as an "alternative" argument.
Tell me what facts I got wrong.
You asserted that:
“The National Firearms Act of 1934 defined “short barreled” as greater than 18”.”
when it is LESS THAN 18”.
Aside from your odd definition, I think it worthwhile to note that we are currently issuing a shotgun with a 6” long barrel, the XM26 LSS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM26_Lightweight_Shotgun_System
If we were to revisit Miller today, with regards to “weapons having military utility”, much (if not all) of NFA34 would have to be tossed out if we were to use that same standard.
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.