Boston Globe Sounds Early Panic Over DC Vs. Heller

"From the Newsday editorial: The Supreme Court shouldn't reverse this settled law."

What fools. Any legislation or precedent case can and should be reversed if it contradicts the U.S. Constitution.

I suppose that the "logic" followed by Newsday would have been in favor of ruling against Brown in 1954...after all, Plessy v. Fergusen was "settled law" for 58 years at that point.

I can only surmise that the Newsday editors remembered to take their Dumb$hit pills on the day that they wrote this.

The mayor very prudently decided not to appeal, because under Georgia law we had a cast iron case and an appeal would have made the case precedential, whereas unappealed it was just another superior court order and not binding on anybody except the City fathers.

Yup. Happens all the time.

Here are two other cases that the government prudently decided to drop...

United States v. Dalton (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)

This is one of the most important, though little known appellate court decisions concerning the second amendment in recent years. This decision basically struck down the 1934, 1968 and 1986 gun control acts. It was not appealed by FedGov, I assume because a loss of this magnitude at the Supreme Court level would be devistating to all federal gun control laws.

United States v. Rock Island Armory

Similar to the Dalton case above, this case would be extremely important to gun owners if only people knew about it. It held that the National Firearms Act was "originally passed as a taxing statute". Since Fedgov is not allowing citizens to purchase weapons covered under the act (machine guns and the like) because they will not allow them to purchase new tax stamps for them, they have effectively removed the 'tax nexus' from the act, which is what made it constitutional in the first place. Therefore, the entire house of cards of gun control at the federal level is struck down. That would include the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts.

Here's the money quote from US v RIA...

"In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are dismissed."

You might want to ask yourself why the NRA never publicized this case.

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.