DC vs Heller

[srothstein]

Well, I see it as a clear cut case. This court will rule that the 2A is an individual right, IMHO. Further they will rule that the DC ban is invalid. One reason I say this is that they very narrowly worded the question so as to not rule on any licensing or unlawfully carrying issue. Note that they restricted it to possession in your own home.

As I pointed out in the TX.guns NG, this court has shown a predisposition to give individuals rights in their home, with the Texas sodomy law as my example. The minor changes since that ruling are more supportive of gun rights, so this is my guess.

ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

[Charles L. Cotton]

ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Chas.

[srothstein]

Charles, my concept is that we lost the rights in little steps, and if it worked for the banners, little steps could work for us.

Also, the more little steps we get set as precedent, the easier the later steps will become.

[Kalrog]

ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Chas.

After they win, you could probably contact http://www.gurapossessky.com/ with your case. They are the same ones that are representing Hellar http://dcguncase.com/blog/ Let me know how it works out and if they need someone else to attempt to make a purchase.

[Liberty]

ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Chas.

After they win, you could probably contact http://www.gurapossessky.com/ with your case. They are the same ones that are representing Hellar http://dcguncase.com/blog/ Let me know how it works out and if they need someone else to attempt to make a purchase.

I don't know much about the stamps, FOPA and legal stuff, but I would be willing to beg Steve to let me try out that M4. That thing is incredible!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Chas.

After they win, you could probably contact http://www.gurapossessky.com/ with your case. They are the same ones that are representing Hellar http://dcguncase.com/blog/ Let me know how it works out and if they need someone else to attempt to make a purchase.

They would not be my choice.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

One reason I say this is that they very narrowly worded the question so as to not rule on any licensing or unlawfully carrying issue. Note that they restricted it to possession in your own home.

Thats one of my big sticking points...

For the life of me I cannot figure out why this part was worded so narrowly...This leaves open a lot of wiggle room to put wedges in the CCW laws around the country...

Actually I can figure it out...And thats why I'm not worried about money or lawyers!

At this particular juncture...

Just tryin' to keep this issue lite...

[stevie_d_64]

Charles, my concept is that we lost the rights in little steps, and if it worked for the banners, little steps could work for us.

Also, the more little steps we get set as precedent, the easier the later steps will become.

I am always hip to this idea...Big gains tend to be openings for big losses...

But after all is said and done...I really hope I am wrong about a few things and that this is going to go our way...

In the end, regardless, we'll still have our stuff...

[ELB]

I have been anxious about this case for some time, because as others have noted, the SCOTUS is not terribly reliable about even relatively strongly adhering to the Constitution as written. Kelo and the McCain-Feingold Act come to mind.

However, I have taken some solace in the way the SCOTUS worded the question they will address. As a reminder:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?�

To me, the question is worded in a way that PRESUMES that individuals - not "States" -- have rights under the Second Amendment. So the basic focus of the court will be on whether the DC provisions violate those rights. That they could wander off and do something destructive is not out of the realm of possibility, but the fact that they spent some time arguing over the question to be addressed, and came up with the above formulation, is somewhat heartening.

I agree I would like a much broader, 2A-friendly result, that trashes the bulk of gun control laws and results other happy outcomes, such as the jailing of Mayor Bloomberg and the rest of his anti-citizen mayor buddies -- but I will be happy to get a SCOTUS declaration that 2A rights are individual rights and banning or rendering guns non-functional violates them.

elb

[Kalrog]

They would not be my choice.

Chas.

Is this a con-law thing where you don't want the same legal team doing all of the 2A arguments or is this more specific in that you don't think this has been handled as well as it could have?

I do have to give them props that they are funding the entire process from the Heller side, but I will claim ignorance on the "right" way to do things in front of SCOTUS. Although they have gotten farther than a lot of people have in the past so they must be doing something right.

Feel free to do as my mother taught me though: If you don't have anything nice to say...

[Liberty]

They would not be my choice.

Chas.

Is this a con-law thing where you don't want the same legal team doing all of the 2A arguments or is this more specific in that you don't think this has been handled as well as it could have?

I do have to give them props that they are funding the entire process from the Heller side, but I will claim ignorance on the "right" way to do things in front of SCOTUS. Although they have gotten farther than a lot of people have in the past so they must be doing something right.

Feel free to do as my mother taught me though: If you don't have anything nice to say...

Heller is not funding it, Robert Levy is funding it. I think there is resentment by NRA and the Levy/Heller team towards each other. The NRA is getting some heat because one hot shot lawyer is going farther than the NRA has in a long time. The Parker camp have accused the NRA of actually attempting to block progress in the beginning. The NRA has since filed some friend of the court briefs in support though.

Got to wonder why a little one man show like Levy has gone so far while the multi million dollar organization When the NRA's successes are mostly limited to stalling or limiting forward progression of the Brady's rather than instituting a forward agenda. Especially when we had a Republican House, Senate and President. There is a growing number of people who are believing that the NRA is too heavily invested in the status quo. Just recently there was a director that attacked owning evil black guns. There was also their blatant lack of recognition of the pro-gun Libertarian party in 2006.


There is a story on the conflict between Levy and the NRA here it touches on the hard feelings between both partys.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article302.html

[Kalrog]

Heller is not funding it, Robert Levy is funding it.

Agreed. I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post. The "they" I was referring to at that point was the law firm & Levy, not Heller.

[Charles L. Cotton]

They would not be my choice.

Chas.

Is this a con-law thing where you don't want the same legal team doing all of the 2A arguments or is this more specific in that you don't think this has been handled as well as it could have?

I do have to give them props that they are funding the entire process from the Heller side, but I will claim ignorance on the "right" way to do things in front of SCOTUS. Although they have gotten farther than a lot of people have in the past so they must be doing something right.

Feel free to do as my mother taught me though: If you don't have anything nice to say...

Heller is not funding it, Robert Levy is funding it. I think there is resentment by NRA and the Levy/Heller team towards each other. The NRA is getting some heat because one hot shot lawyer is going farther than the NRA has in a long time. The Parker camp have accused the NRA of actually attempting to block progress in the beginning. The NRA has since filed some friend of the court briefs in support though.

Got to wonder why a little one man show like Levy has gone so far while the multi million dollar organization When the NRA's successes are mostly limited to stalling or limiting forward progression of the Brady's rather than instituting a forward agenda. Especially when we had a Republican House, Senate and President. There is a growing number of people who are believing that the NRA is too heavily invested in the status quo. Just recently there was a director that attacked owning evil black guns. There was also their blatant lack of recognition of the pro-gun Libertarian party in 2006.


There is a story on the conflict between Levy and the NRA here it touches on the hard feelings between both partys.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article302.html

This article is a blatant lie. If anyone is truly interested in the facts, then it will take a little bit of work to find them, but not too much. First, read the NRA's brief in the Seegars case and the "Parker teams" brief in Parker. (The "Parker team" filed a brief against gun owners in Seegars that caused them some problems in Parker.) Then read the appellate court's opinion in Parker. It will be clear whose work carried the day.

I disagree that "[t]here is a growing number of people who are believing that the NRA is too heavily invested in the status quo." The only people who believe this are the perennial NRA-bashers, especially candidates for the Libertarian Party who decry a lack of support from the NRA. They may not even believe it, they just follow the Sara Brady lead and throw it out to see if anyone bill bite.

At the time the Parker case was filed, a Second Amendment case was DOA at the Supreme Court. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Only after significant changes on the S/Ct. did a favorable outcome become even remotely possible. There is so much to this story that I simply cannot disclose at this time. I have to admit, this is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do; i.e. sit back and read blatant lies and half-truths from people seeking only to promote their self-interests. I can't wait until this case is over!

As for being "too heavily invested in the status quo," even a cursory review of the issue shows that the scope of an individual right will be litigated for years. A favorable ruling will also make legislative efforts even more important. NRA's mission will not diminish with a favorable ruling; if anything, NRA's roll will become even more important as anti's try to circumvent the Court's ruling that recognizes an individual right. (If that is what the Court ultimately decides.)

One little guy doing what a multi-million dollar organization couldn't? Oh please! Read the briefs I mentioned above, then wait for the whole story after Parker/Heller is over. Those who care about truth will understand what really happened, while those who want to continue unfounded NRA-bashing will ignore it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

They would not be my choice.

Chas.

Is this a con-law thing where you don't want the same legal team doing all of the 2A arguments or is this more specific in that you don't think this has been handled as well as it could have?

I do have to give them props that they are funding the entire process from the Heller side, but I will claim ignorance on the "right" way to do things in front of SCOTUS. Although they have gotten farther than a lot of people have in the past so they must be doing something right.

Feel free to do as my mother taught me though: If you don't have anything nice to say...

I can't go into details now.

Chas.