NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1


HerbM
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#31

Post by HerbM »

Law Review articles will be very valuable as soon as they start to appear, and find their way to the web.

One problem with these is the abysmal level of education on the 2nd Amendment -- which was a large part of the problem until Heller was affirmed and should change over the next few years and decades.

Books such as American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe, the near standard for ConLaw classes, have long been devoid of nearly anything on the subject.

Practically all lawyers would misunderstand words such as militia, regulated, and maybe even state in the context of the 2nd Amendment -- they either superimpose modern meanings or whatever they were taught (almost always) incorrectly in law school.

And of the few who had studied Miller, at least half misunderstood what it did, and did not say and/or what it actually ordered. Justice Stevens actually managed to commit factual errors in the minority opinion what would have lowered the grade of a first year law student. Stevens, or at least his clerks, just got the FACTS wrong to the point of incompetence (really.)

It has been entirely common for law professors to parrot the previous generation, what they themselves learned in law school and never again reviewed, until and unless they did a review themselves. At that point it because fairly standard for the law professor to adopt the individual rights position, e.g., Tribe (Harvard), Amar Reed Akhil (Yale), Sanford Levinson (UT), Alan Dershowitz (of OJ fame for those who don't know his expertise in in ConLaw and thus appeals had OJ been convicted -- former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns), William Van Alstyne (Duke), Nelson Lund (George Mason University).

Starting how, all legal scholars and students will be forced, however kicking and screaming, to START from the position that the 2nd Amendment protects an individul right, not predicated on militia service but contextualized by that service. It should not take long for the intellectually honest among them to reach my position and incidated in Heller: At least the firearms of the individual infantryman, (paramilitary) police officer, and ordinary civilian use are protected.

Now it will take time, and the Court could reverse this, but a decision that follows Heller would have to gut the 1934 NFA. The police cannot commonly issue firearms denied to the general public. Nor can the Army and Marines.

I am talking individual weapons, the argument for tanks and rocket launchers is one easily made if forced to use nothing but facts and logic, but that will require either the Court or an amendment to fix and I have no doubt that one or the other will occur.

I love the prima fasci, part (the only thing I elided are the case references):

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ...and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Our next President is going to pick 1-4 Supreme Court Justices -- who do we want (of the two actual choices) doing that?

I know it will horrify the Brady bunch and scare the sheeple but quite simply:
  • I want my SAW, MP5, M16/M4, and short shotgun -- all bearable arms
  • ...I want my CHL recognized in the other 20 (approximately) states -- or the requirement for it dropped completely.
  • I want my grand kids to be able to draw a picture of (granddad at the range shooting) a firearm or write a story about a citizen stopping a crime or about a soldier defending American with a firearm, without getting suspended or expelled
And I am entirely serious (except that I doubt that I can afford both a SAW and MP5 so I want the MP5 first)

The longer I read this decision the more I like it with only minor exceptions, and given what it could realistically have said that is understandable:
  • registration seems it might be legal but of course is not addressed in any direct manner.
  • sensitive zones -- I don't think a school teacher must give up rights to report for work, nor a(n older) student do so either
I entirely expect incorporation (enforcement upon the states), equal opportunity/civil rights, and privileges and immunities challenges to be successful.

Wilmette, IL has already suspended their ban on hand guns in the home.
HerbM
User avatar

nra-life-member
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:31 pm

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#32

Post by nra-life-member »

HerbM wrote:
How many of you would have a short barrel shotgun for home, office, or vehicle defense if they were legal?

I would.
You can get a Shotgun with 14" BARREL and pistol grip and it only requires a $5 tax stamp (AOW) - but all the paperwork. If you want the full stock on it, then it's a $ 200 Tax Stamp (SBS).

Still - yes, you can't buy it off the rack..
User avatar

boomerang
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2629
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#33

Post by boomerang »

nra-life-member wrote:Still - yes, you can't buy it off the rack..
You can't even cut down a shotgun you already own because some illiterates think that's interstate commerce. :banghead:
"Ees gun! Ees not safe!"

HerbM
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#34

Post by HerbM »

boomerang wrote:
nra-life-member wrote:Still - yes, you can't buy it off the rack..
You can't even cut down a shotgun you already own because some illiterates think that's interstate commerce. :banghead:
:iagree: And you can buy one for $700+ if it has never had a butt stock on it. So anyone that wants one and is rich can have it but if you cannot afford it then you are denied the right.

That is using taxation and regulation to restrict a right without compelling state interest to justify it.

(And I seriously don't like big shotguns for using around the home -- they are just too awkward unless you have a bead on the subject, and my wife finds them too heavy but I could teach her to put the butt up against the wall or her bed cabinet and let fly.
HerbM
User avatar

nra-life-member
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:31 pm

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#35

Post by nra-life-member »

I don't think 2" is worth $ 400+ more :rolll , but who am I to say..

HerbM
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#36

Post by HerbM »

nra-life-member wrote:I don't think 2" is worth $ 400+ more :rolll , but who am I to say..
Someone had a picture of a tricked out double shotgun (mocked up?) on the board last month.

That's about what I want were this legal -- a short two-barrel pump shotgun with a 3-round mag. Two triggers: pull one, then two, then jack 2 rounds with the slide.
A small pull out or fold over extension for should or backstop mounting. That would be a great home defense gun, and cheap if they were legal and mass produced.
HerbM

lrb111
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#37

Post by lrb111 »

To make it worse, our military uses short barreled shotguns for door "breaching" weapons. Some police departments also. So, they are in common use. (From the trench guns in WW1 through today.)

These could be over the counter weapons, at $200 a piece, or less.
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor

rm9792
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:07 pm

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#38

Post by rm9792 »

boomerang wrote:
nra-life-member wrote:Still - yes, you can't buy it off the rack..
You can't even cut down a shotgun you already own because some illiterates think that's interstate commerce. :banghead:
You cant cut down an existing shotgun? I thought you could once the paperwork was done and paid.
User avatar

Bart
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart
Contact:

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#39

Post by Bart »

Why should anyone have to file federal paperwork to modify their personal property? What part of the Constitution allows the government to require that?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

rm9792
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:07 pm

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#40

Post by rm9792 »

Bart wrote:Why should anyone have to file federal paperwork to modify their personal property? What part of the Constitution allows the government to require that?
While I agree with you, i dont have the funds to defend our rights.
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#41

Post by anygunanywhere »

rm9792 wrote:
Bart wrote:Why should anyone have to file federal paperwork to modify their personal property? What part of the Constitution allows the government to require that?
While I agree with you, i dont have the funds to defend our rights.
Got ammo?

Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand

DParker
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:39 am

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#42

Post by DParker »

anygunanywhere wrote:
rm9792 wrote:While I agree with you, i dont have the funds to defend our rights.
Got ammo?
Oh, right. Like anyone can afford ammo these days.

rm9792
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:07 pm

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#43

Post by rm9792 »

anygunanywhere wrote:
rm9792 wrote:
Bart wrote:Why should anyone have to file federal paperwork to modify their personal property? What part of the Constitution allows the government to require that?
While I agree with you, i dont have the funds to defend our rights.
Got ammo?

Anygunanywhere
Yeah, lots. Thats why no funds. :fire

SRizz21
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:09 am

Re: NRA begins filing lawsuits againt San Fran and Chicago!!

#44

Post by SRizz21 »

It is about time...I am proud to be a member of the NRA
Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”