how is the heller stuff going?


PDA






icebones
April 14, 2008, 06:58 PM
i havent been keeping tabs on the heller court case in DC (lots of work)

so whats the lastest news?

also, a buddy of mine was wondering about the gun politics in italy, apparently he has a family member that lives there and he is just curious...

thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "how is the heller stuff going?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ServiceSoon
April 14, 2008, 07:19 PM
SCOTUS definitely won't rule it as a collective right.

Justin
April 14, 2008, 08:19 PM
As of now, nobody knows. A final ruling is expected sometime in June.

lamazza
April 14, 2008, 08:51 PM
SCOTUS definitely won't rule it as a collective right
Its kind of looking like that, but never underestimate the alterior motives of SCOTUS.
I became skeptical when they actually ACCEPTED to hear this case.

gbran
April 14, 2008, 09:10 PM
It seems to me that the court is going to do at least two things. The first would be to decide the individual v collective issue. The second is to decide on the 1976 DC law and wether it violates the 2A. Keep in mind that this law bans handguns outright and requires longarms to be disassembled or locked up. During oral arguments the issues of the longarms status was questioned at length.

Also keep in mind the fact that a lot of this case dwells on Heller's and other citizen's right to keep arms in their homes.

What strikes me is the potential unintended consequences of a postive ruling from the court. If they decide in favor of the individual right and go on to say that the DC law cannot ban handguns and is too restrictive on long guns, then DC residients should then be able to keep both long guns and handguns in the home.

But, here comes the big unintended consequence. The court can't rule that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right only applies in the home.

What happens when you walk out of your home? Do you lose that right? Did our forefathers keep lock boxes on their horses or buggies?

geekWithA.45
April 14, 2008, 09:14 PM
At this point, it's all conjecture.

We can read some tea leaves, which has a track record of limited success, based on reactions of the Justices during oral arguments.

The court has a wide array of options open to it.

What most people are expecting is some acknowledgement that RKBA is an individual right, and that outright bans are infringements of that right. Beyond that is anyone's guess.

Winchester 73
April 14, 2008, 09:24 PM
Italian info:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Italy.htm


Gianni, Get Your Gun

by Dave Kopel & Carlo Stagnaro

One of the important reasons for the sweeping election victory of Silvio Berlusconi and his House of Liberty was concern about public safety – which ranks as the number one public concern in some polling. Berlusconi promised to do whatever necessary to make people feel safer, and his platform affirmed that:

"Safety of the people, preservation of their security and protection of their goods, is the base of the contract between citizenry and institutions, without whom the government lose its historical and moral legitimacy."

Public safety is leading some Italians to rediscover the virtue of people being able to protect themselves.



An online poll conducted by Publiweb (a major Italian web portal) found that asked "Is it legitimate to defend one’s property with guns?" Fifty-nine percent said "si," while 36 percent would allow firearms use only in an extreme emergency. A mere three percent categorically rejected firearms use for property defense.



Italian citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to arms, and, unlike the Commonwealth countries, there is no common-law tradition either. Purchase of a firearm requires a police license and registration. As of 1996, there were 757,240 people licensed to possess shotguns for sporting purposes.



Handgun permits are much harder to obtain. Usually, permits are granted to those whom the government decides have a "need" to carry firearms for self-defense, such as jewelers or other persons who carry valuables for business purposes. These licenses have declined from 42,396 in 1996 to 31,850 in 1998.



Dr. Paolo Tagini, assistant editor of the gun monthly Armi Magazine explains the complexity of Italian laws:

"There are. . .fifty Italian gun-control laws, which have been passed over the last sixty years; such a ‘legal stratification’ has made possible the introduction of ever stricter laws, that have often failed in protecting honest citizens. The Italian system doesn't work with regard to the illegal import of guns (especially from the Adriatic Sea); on the other hand, honest citizens often must suffer useless torments whose never-stated goal is to move them away from guns."

Italy has a thriving illegal import/export trade in firearms, especially with Albania.



Actual use of a firearm for protection often leads to criminal prosecution. In one case in southern Italy, a man was relaxing in his terrace, when a gang started to shoot in his direction. He returned fire, and shot a 15-year-old gangster. The man was criminally prosecuted for injuring the gangster, under the theory that he should have taken shelter behind a parapet, rather than shooting back.



In Brescia, a man had been robbed three times. One a night, he heard suspicious noises from the courtyard. He looked out the window and saw a gang trying to jimmy his door. He took his gun and fired, killing one. He is being prosecuted for intentional homicide.



A hunter kept his gun in an armored cabinet, as the law requires. One day, his son stole it and used it to shoot another adolescent. The hunter was prosecuted for failing to store his weapon safely.



The media are worried about rising Italian sentiment in favor of self-defense. As noted columnist Corrado Augias wrote in the liberal daily La Republica:



"What would be the result, if everyone carried guns? The Far West or, whether you prefer a nearer and only apparently more graceful picture, Romeo and Juliet's Verona. It took centuries to limit right to self defence, I don't think we should get back."

In the hardcore communist daily, Il Manifesto, Massimo Carlotto deplored those who believe in "the necessity of self-defense . . The time has come to understand and seriously monitor the phenomenon, with the goal to restrict the gun trade." His view is typical among gun control supporters, for whom any system short of total prohibition is seen as full of loopholes.



Modern Italian gun control laws date from the Fascist period; the Public Safety Act was passed in 1931 as one of a series of measures designed to put an end to leftist violence. Addressing the Italian Senate Benito Mussolini explained:

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."

Yet after the fall of the Fascist regime, the gun-control law remained and was gradually made even more stringent. In response to Communist terrorism in the 1970’s, a variety of laws were passed to disarm law-abiding people. More recent amendments force those who need the permit to carry firearms to demonstrate a "necessity," and to give the government extremely personal information, such as medical certificates.



In the United States, at the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (run by the Second Amendment Foundation), delegates habitually adopt a "NATO Doctrine" resolution, whereby an attack on one form of gun ownership is considered to be an attack on all. This resolution, and the consciousness behind it, mean that practitioners of obscure shooting disciplines (e.g., .50 caliber long-range target shooting) can count on energetic support from the full spectrum of gun owners.



Italian gun owners, however, rarely defend a comprehensive right to arms, but instead focus narrowly on the interests of their particular shooting discipline. Hunting groups do not support gun ownership for target shooting, or for self-defense. Target shooters ignore the rights of hunters. And almost no-one discusses the most important element of the right to arms: the duty of a free people to resist tyranny. Supposedly, a civilized Western republic would never lapse into tyranny – although Italy did so under Mussolini and under the Caesars.



But there are signs of a growing solidarity among some gun owners. The Associazione Difesa del Cacciatore is a pro-hunting group that also advocates the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The group’s President, attorney Mauro Cecchetti argues that:



"Italian hunters should immediately take what was stolen from them: their sacred and inviolable right to freedom of hunting, freedom to own and carry guns for hunting activity, for sports. . .for personal and home defense."

Leonardo Facco owns a publishing firm (http://www.libertari.org) in Treviglio. He publishes libertarian authors such as Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Carlo Lottieri, who argue that an armed citizenry is insurance against tyranny. A new book by Lottieri, Il pensiero libertario contemporaneo (Macerata: Liberilibri) offers a history of libertarian thought that explains that, without right to self-defense, there are no rights at all. Publisher Facco promises: "My intention is to promote pro-gun theories -and gun facts."



Even on the political side, something is developing. Prof. Antonio Martino of the Forza Italia movement (www.forza-italia.it) is a noted conservative who served as Foreign Minister in the first Berlusconi administration, in 1994. He has been appointed Defence Minister in the new Berlusconi government, and he endorses private gun ownership:

"Even though I am not armed, I strongly oppose the regulations in force, which disarm only honest citizens, not criminals. Such a near-prohibition on gun ownership is harmful and anti-liberty. It also is a good example of the damage caused by the idea of a ‘crime of danger’ - a victimless crime -- an idea which is a real aberration, but which is spreading and thus eating away our own liberties."

Prof. Martino is also a strong critic of militarization of law enforcement.



The Forza Italia has no official position on guns, and as Defense Minister, Prof. Martino plays no direct role in gun policy. But his statements help gun owners exit the ghetto in which statist culture has confined them.



Likewise the Lega Nord has no official position on guns, Cesare Galli, a member and prominent intellectual property lawyer, promoted a petition in his hometown of Brescia, to ask for stronger public safety measures, including the right of honest citizens to keep and bear arms:

"The right of the people to defend themselves should be granted; such a goal can be pursued only by giving them the opportunity to be armed. The government can't legitimately prevent people from owning firearms, leaving them therefore helpless in the face of criminals."

Another Lega Nord member, Giancarlo Pagliarini -- member of Parliament and former Budget Minister -- often says that, "If one gets in other people's house without their consent, one is looking for a bullet."



Will Italy reform its statist, pro-criminal gun laws? That the question is even a subject of serious political debate is a measure for how much Berlusconi has changed the political dialogue.

Werewolf
April 14, 2008, 09:29 PM
This SCOTUS has a history of taking freedom's away from the people and giving power to the government. (McCain-Feingold, the Utah papers please case and the RI emminent domain case - 1st, 4th, 5th - upheld some laws that stretched the commerce clause to the limit etc etc etc).

I don't imagine they'll do any different this time around and will find in favor of DC over Heller. Their reasoning will be that local governments have the right - no - the responsibility to protect it's citizens. The method chosen by those governments is their choice as long as the methods meet a reasonable man test.

In this day and age restricting gun rights is generally accepted by politicians and most people to be reasonable. Since laws are written by politicians and judged by juries of the people - well - you do the math.

On the other hand if SCOTUS rules for Heller there's a very real possibility that there could be a domino effect that eventually ends with most gun laws going away.

That would be some major boat rocking and this particular SCOTUS IMO just don't like to rock the boat.

THAT SUCKS! But it is the way I see it. Hopefully I am wrong - that's been known to happen.

Winchester 73
April 14, 2008, 09:33 PM
I don't imagine they'll do any different this time around and will find in favor of DC over Heller

I'll be glad to meet you in Vegas and give you 3-1 odds that you are wrong.
You name the stakes.
Another excuse to go to Caesars Palace.:evil:
Almost forgot:What happens in Vegas,stays in Vegas.
Was there ever a better ad line?

TX1911fan
April 14, 2008, 09:39 PM
And almost no-one discusses the most important element of the right to arms: the duty of a free people to resist tyranny. Supposedly, a civilized Western republic would never lapse into tyranny – although Italy did so under Mussolini and under the Caesars.

This is a great quote from the above article on Italian gun control. People throughout the West would be wise to heed this. You could add Spain and Germany to the list as well.

Werewolf
April 14, 2008, 09:53 PM
This is a great quote from the above article on Italian gun control. People throughout the West would be wise to heed this. You could add Spain and Germany to the list as well.You could but it'd be entirely irrelevant. You see the peoples of Europe have been aculturated for thousands of years to the role of rulers and subjects. Subjects pretty much do what they're told. Only one real revolution in the name of freedom happened in Europe and that was in France in the 1790's. It failed.

Europeans are socialist democracies today because the monarchies got old, weak and useless. There was no fight for power - they gave it up willingly and the European people just traded one ruler for another.

Only in the US did the people rise up (and then only about a third) and forcefully throw off the yoke of subjecthood to become citizens.

What happened in Italy is a nice story but a poor analogy re: the situation in the US and irrelevant.

Unfortunately it seems that even in the US the people are becoming aculturated to the role of subject. Probably too late to reverse the trend.

Coronach
April 14, 2008, 10:02 PM
This SCOTUS has a history of taking freedom's away from the people and giving power to the government. (McCain-Feingold, the Utah papers please case and the RI emminent domain case - 1st, 4th, 5th - upheld some laws that stretched the commerce clause to the limit etc etc etc).Without looking at the dates that some of those cases were heard, I know that in at least some of the instances you are wrong. "This court" implies the current lineup. The current lineup of judges did not rule on Kelo, for instance.

Mike

blackhawk2000
April 14, 2008, 10:04 PM
Their reasoning will be that local governments have the right - no - the responsibility to protect it's citizens. The method chosen by those governments is their choice as long as the methods meet a reasonable man test.



If this is the case, then anyone who was not protected by their local govt, could sue them for not providing their legal obligation.

Eightball
April 14, 2008, 10:08 PM
But, here comes the big unintended consequence. The court can't rule that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right only applies in the home.

What happens when you walk out of your home? Do you lose that right? Did our forefathers keep lock boxes on their horses or buggies?oh, crud. Never even thought of this. You can believe Obama and all the other anti-CCW groups would jump at this.

Technosavant
April 14, 2008, 10:18 PM
oh, crud. Never even thought of this. You can believe Obama and all the other anti-CCW groups would jump at this.

That wouldn't change a thing. Even if Heller went completely against us (I don't believe it will, but we'll see), all it would do is codify the current legal landscape where pro gun and anti gun forces fight it out in the legislature. Now, it would breathe new life into the anti forces, since we would have (for all intents and purposes) lost the 2A argument as completely as possible, but it would not change a thing. It won't immediately ban a thing. It won't roll back any CCW laws or anything else. It would only mean that the government views the Second Amendment as a solely collective right and bans are fair game. That's exactly the environment in which we have been living since 1934.

Sure, it would not be enjoyable, but it would not be the end of the world. That's the worst that can happen from this decision. It goes up from there, and I expect we'll see a limited decision that puts outright bans beyond the pale. The only question is what kind of bans it puts beyond the pale- will it mean any future AWB is unconstitutional?

So yes, they would love it, but it doesn't mean that they would have a red carpet over a yellow brick road to victory in pushing bans. They might in some places, but in most they'll keep on losing, just like they have been.

Werewolf
April 14, 2008, 10:18 PM
Without looking at the dates that some of those cases were heard, I know that in at least some of the instances you are wrong. "This court" implies the current lineup. The current lineup of judges did not rule on Kelo, for instance.

MikeYou are correct. Those decisions were made without Roberts and the other new guy, Alito???? But some of Roberts past decisions as described in this article (http://michellemalkin.com/2005/07/19/scotus-watch-roberts-file/) worry me a bit. Alito's Senate confirmation hearing is worrisome too. He skirted the issues. I seem to remember that justice Sunnunu, nominated by Reagan I believe, that pretty much did the same and look how he turned out. Here's a link to a summary of Alito's Hearing (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/10/alito/).

Guys! Don't get me wrong! I'm hoping right along with you that the court supports Heller but there's a real possibility that it will not happen and all the wishful thinking going on here won't make it so.

Henry Bowman
April 14, 2008, 10:25 PM
But, here comes the big unintended consequence. The court can't rule that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right only applies in the home.

What happens when you walk out of your home? Another case for another day.

If you enjoyed reading about "how is the heller stuff going?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!