Posted on 02/04/2008 11:35:06 AM PST by ctdonath2
Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcguncase.com ...
He doesn't care. He dare not admit to anything along these lines or his whole house of anti-RKBA cards comes crashing down.
So what will happen if they do indeed decide that D.C.’s ban is legitimate, and that it is not an individual right, but a collective one, belonging to various organized entities, including state and federal?
Note: I certainly hope it doesn’t happen that way, but it is a possibility.
Heller Ping
I know. I'm just piling on.
I will also be thinking of him in a couple of years when Title 18, Section 922(o) is invalidated, using Heller as precedent, and I can then go to my local Class 3 dealer and buy a brand-spanking-new full auto of my choice.
They are going to use some flimsy excuse to ban scary guns, "sniper" guns, "criminal's" guns, "cop killer" guns, "unsafe" guns, "assault weapon" guns, "bullet hose" guns, "street sweeper" guns...
“Yep, it’s been 70 years since the Supreme Court has directly ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.”
And the last time they did it, there wasn’t even an opposing lawyer, and the case appeared to be fast-tracked to the Supremes for the purpose of validating the Gun National Firearms Act of 1934.
And the Supremes actually partially validated the 2nd Amendment by saying that a short-barrelled shotgun was not protected by the 2nd Amendment, _only_ because it wasn’t militarily useful, and not used by military/police at the time. Thus, they indirectly ruled that militarily useful firearms were protected.
Another interesting fact of the ‘34 NFA is that the Feds tried to claim it was not a gun control act at all, but rather a revenue mesure, since it did not actually ban anything, and instead imposed a tax on these items. The NFA is in the Internet Revenue Code.
It wasn’t until the ‘68 Gun Control Act that the Feds abandoned the pretense that they weren’t trying to regulate guns.
The Solicitor General’s supposed “heightened” scrutiny standard is scarcely better, demanding that judges weigh conflicting and disputable scientific claims to determine the constitutionality of disarming law-abiding individuals, apparently on an as-applied basis.
BTTT
I agree. They will try the case on the basis of some legal obscurity; e.g. D.C.'s standing before the court because they aren't a state, or some other crap, but they WILL NOT directly confirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Unfortunately, this brief goes to length to build a wall against the question of us having serious military arms. It harps on "common use at the time" with the view that the 2ndA only covers those items which we would normally have outside military application. (Methinks they're just trying to ward off a huge red herring, but it will be a problem for us later.)
Much of the brief takes great pains to claim very little of the 20,000 laws will be affected, focusing on the extremism of DC’s ban as being far beyond any other “reasonable” regulation.
...(Methinks they're just trying to ward off a huge red herring....
I would agree about the red herring issue - I think that they want to avoid even a question from one of the Justices to the effect of "So, would ruling in your favor mean that anyone could walk down to the local Home Depot and buy a Stinger missile, counselor?" (or a tank, F15, suitcase nuke, etc., etc. - take your pick).
However, I don't think that we're going to be too terribly limited on full autos by this ruling. You see, there are already something like 200,000 of them out there, and an existing legal process for transfer. Further, the '86 ban is virtually identical in nature to the DC ban, and if Heller wins his case, so should the person/people who bring a case against the BATFE for failing to register a full auto under the provisions of the '34 NFA.
There goes the thread. :>)
Under this Court’s precedent, the arms whose individual possession is protected by the Second Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the kind in common use, such that civilians would be expected to have them for ordinary purposes, and (2) would have military utility in time of need. A weapon that satisfies only one of these requirements would not be 4 protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns indisputably satisfy both requirements.
So all a court/legislature needs to do is say that a particular type of firearm is either "not in common use" among civilians for ordinary purposes or they can claim that the weapon would not have "military utility in time of need." So fully automatic weapons are not in common use for ordinary purposes and all but fully automatic long fire arms may have limited to little military utility in time of need. I feel like Catch-22 is coming at me like a RR train in a long tunnel.
I wonder if 50BMG long distance rifles are "not in common use" for ordinary purposes and will soon be banned. Maybe small caliber (.22 & .25) handguns will be declared as having no military use in a time of need. I suppose .22 caliber and .17 cailber rifles could quickly follow, the same with rifle calibers above .308 and below .223. I wonder if revolvers will be declared as not having military use in a time of need as the DOD only issues semi-automatic handguns.
Miller’s conceptual framework is plain. First, this Court inquires whether a weapon “at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” meaning that the weapon is “any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Second, the Court explained that when fulfilling the Second Amendment’s militia rationale, people “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Id. at 179. The assumption is that at least some arms of the kind people would use for ordinary civilian purposes— arms in “common use at the time”—would also be the arms used in militia service.
A lot of interesting Revolutionary history contained in the footnotes, some of which may be relevant to current gun control legislation proposed by some.
Samuel Adams complained that the British “have told us we shall have no more guns, no powder to use. . . . How can you live without powder and guns? But we hope to supply you soon with both, of our own making.” 3 WRITINGS OF SAMUEL ADAMS 212-13.
The key thing to remember when reading this brief is that the focus is on a total categorical ban, coupled with a total practical prohibition on use - with absolutely no way to legally engage in the most reasonable of actions (self-defense at home). This brief creates several barriers to avoid getting sucked into tangential red-herring arguments that are outside the very narrow scope of this case.
I'm nostalgic that way.
Of course, I'd also have both my semi-auto AR's converted up for a "happy switch". ;-)
Yeah, that bugged me too. Harping on “common use” ... c’mon guys, a “well-regulated militia” needs some specialized stuff too, not just squirrel-huntin’ pieces! Also, they didn’t note that “common use” should include stuff that _would_ be common if only it weren’t illegal for a long time. Every AR15 in current “common use” would have “da switch” if only ‘twer legal to do so.
Here the reality of the narrow ruling begins: for the respondent to succeed, he must focus on _his_ case, to the exclusion (and possible detriment) of others to follow. Should certain avenues of discussion not been blocked, this brief would have been badly sidetracked.
Dittos for me on the Tommy Gun and the BAR (though a nearly identical Colt Monitor would work for me), and for the same reasons.
The family at that range that you and I met a couple years back owns a Tommy Gun. I haven’t been able to fire it yet, but maybe someday. They say it is extremely prone to jamming.
Dittos on the happy switch on my AR, and on my M1A. Someday, someday.
First of all, where's the moron who would seriously contend that religion, morality, or knowledge were unnecessary for good government?
Idiotic supposition with a lamebrain conclusion.
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.