Next Steps after Heller?


PDA






azredhawk44
June 26, 2008, 01:21 PM
"Common Use" seems to be our enemy for our next goals, folks.

We need more military-level equipment to be in common use as a result.

May I suggest?

1. We all make it a point to put together short-barreled rifles (SBR's), get the permits for that, then to the same rifle also attach a suppressor and license that? Then file a class action suit with all SBR'd/Suppressed owners using this case as precedent, to have the GCA-34 taxes refunded and found unconstitutional?

2. Use that case as demonstration that "common use" is inherently impaired by federal legislation, in order to open up the FOPA-86 ban on new manufacture of machine gun receivers?

If you enjoyed reading about "Next Steps after Heller?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
June 26, 2008, 01:23 PM
I think defining common use will be just as big. IIRC, there are already a couple hundred thousand suppressors and MGs owned in the US - does this constitute "common use"? If not, what does?

Taking the angle that the '86 ban pretty much prevented something from becoming common use might be a good approach (this has been mentioned a few times already).

lee n. field
June 26, 2008, 01:25 PM
Next Steps after Heller?

Storm Mayor "Baby Dick" Daley's palace.

Picard
June 26, 2008, 01:33 PM
Yes, storm his place on July 11th, from 11am-1pm.

http://www.chicagorally.isra.org/

It'd be great if we could get some of you highroaders from neighboring states to come to this. It's time we gave Daley the one-two punch and enacted concealed carry in Illinois.

Thernlund
June 26, 2008, 01:35 PM
Then file a class action suit with all SBR'd/Suppressed owners using this case as precedent, to have the GCA-34 taxes refunded and found unconstitutional?I wouldn't support the refunding of NFA taxes. That'd put a strain on the federal budget, and we'd just end up paying in other ways to make up for it (the refund).

Don't forget, any money you get back from the gov't will just be compensated for somewhere else. You're just paying yourself. Pay backs and stimulus checks are just stop-gap feel good measures. Giving everyone back their NFA taxes will ultimately do more harm than good.

Honestly, I don't even mind paying the tax. Just stop all the paperwork with the fingerprint and photo requirements and allow me to take possession at the time of purchase, and we're all good. Paying the NFA tax should be just like paying sales tax at the grocery store. I don't have to submit fingerprints and photos for approval and wait 3 months to get my milk and eggs, eh?


-T.

geekWithA.45
June 26, 2008, 01:50 PM
Future engagements:

1934 NFA: make the case that the reason they're no longer common is because of the impact of an unconstitutional law.

CHI: This will be a perfect case to get 2A incorporated, since it's such a close match to DC

Once incorporated, we can go after state level AWBs, and the few remaining states with "capricious issue" permit policies, both for ownership and carry. I wonder if the jerks in Trenton can read the writing on the wall? Yes, New Jersey, that bell is tolling for YOU.

Oh, and they can FORGET any new federal AWBs.

Evyl Robot
June 26, 2008, 01:54 PM
I believe that there are six states that don't have open carry of any kind. I live in one of these. I have to wonder if this case will spark changes as far as that is concerned. I would love to have OC as an option in OK. Not that I would abandon CCW altogether, but I do like options.

brighamr
June 26, 2008, 01:54 PM
"That'd put a strain on the federal budget"

I'm sorry. A $200 tax on a $20,000 M16 wont strain the federal budget. If you're worried about all the fed's not having enough money, why don't we cut out a few hundred fed jobs that are overpaid and serve no real purpose? (BATFE for example)


I pay $50,000 per year in federal income tax. I don't think it's OK to pay $200 more for a domestically produced item.


As for next steps, I agree with Geek.

Thernlund
June 26, 2008, 02:19 PM
A $200 tax on a $20,000 M16 wont strain the federal budget.

Note that I don't mean doing away with it. I mean retroactively refunding 70 years of taxes.

Doing away with it going forward is inconsequential. Giving back all that money isn't.


-T.

redneckrepairs
June 26, 2008, 02:34 PM
Next step IMHO is to explore what was alluded to in " Common use " however the SCOUS opinion was worded in such a fashon that almost anything is open , even imho kicking open the mg regestry , tho not revisiting miller so be prepared to pay the tax stamp lol . Scalia authered an opinion , He or someone else authored an agreement to get the " foot in the door " that the 2nd codifies an individual right . Now to be decided is both the " scope " and " scrutiny " of the newly recognized right . Ie just what " arms " does the right protect , and to what degree can an absolute right be impinged on ( Note that i did not use infringed )

The last " right " that was found in the constitution imho was abortion in 410 U.S. 113 (1973) . Now i will not state if or if i do not agree with the " right " to abortion , i will however note that from 73 we still have not sorted out what it means and to what effect it may be applied . The 2nd will be as long drawn out and as bitterly fought imho . Point is that SCOUS now says its a right for you and me across the nation . No matter what we would have liked to seen on a broad opinion , it is still better off than we were yesterday .

brighamr
June 26, 2008, 02:39 PM
"I mean retroactively refunding 70 years of taxes" - Now I understand, and agree. That would be wayyyy too much money for the feds to part with.

RX-178
June 26, 2008, 02:51 PM
I think that we should tackle the self defense angle first and foremost of all, since it doesn't get the knee-jerk media reaction that EBRs do.


Any state, city, or region in the country that does not in any way shape or form allow the carry of firearms by the average citizen (and anyone who has to prove why they need a firearm first no longer qualifies as 'average', but 'privileged') should be the next. Scalia specifically stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for self defense.

Going after the MG registry and state-level AWBs would be predictable, and far to easily vilified, to the point of them even questioning the Heller ruling ('It was a bad decision because now they want machineguns'... that just doesn't look good for us).

ilbob
June 26, 2008, 03:01 PM
I see a couple of obvious areas to look at.

Incorporation. Chicago is a good place to go after incorporation since the Chicago ban is virtually identical to the DC ban ad far as handguns go.

The real test comes when you get to the "bear" part of the RTKBA. A good start might be to file suit in federal court challenging the ban on carry in federal parks. Pretty innocent carrying a firearm out in the woods. Get a ruling that bearing arms is also protected, with "reasonable" restrictions (like nothing that weighs over 100 pounds).

brighamr
June 26, 2008, 03:05 PM
correction - "Scalia specifically stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for self defense"

In the actual decision, it was stated the 2nd was for self defense, and hunting.

So, for anyone that hunts with an EBR... that's what the 2nd is for.

ARTiger
June 26, 2008, 03:10 PM
Open carry on the 7 states that prohibit it. I'm checking into a lawsuit to challenge the state law on 2A grounds in my state.

dburkhead
June 26, 2008, 03:19 PM
One concern I have is folk trying to do too much at once which is just a good way to fail. (All or nothing usually means nothing.) It took many accumulated small steps to get in the hole we're in now and it will take many small steps to climb out of it.

My own thought would be to try to reverse the language in GOPA that the BATF interprets as restricting licensing of post '86 weapons. That, I think, is doable and will set the stage for further steps down the road.

geekWithA.45
June 26, 2008, 03:20 PM
CHI: This will be a perfect case to get 2A incorporated, since it's such a close match to DC


On second thought, don't go after CHI. Daley would bankrupt the city even further to defend against it. Go after some little podunk town that can't afford to defend themselves. There's no dishonor in that. The dishonor is in a system that allows a couple of town busybodies to pester the town council until they get 3 votes to divest people of their unalienable rights.


Get the incorporation ruling there, THEN go after Daley, after that ruling has rendered him helpless.

Zedicus
June 26, 2008, 03:39 PM
Next Steps after Heller


Secure Heller Ruling with whatever it takes (more lawsuits etc) to make it "Set in Stone".
Go after State level Weapons bans/Restrictions.
Go after National CCW Reciprocity & OC Legalization.
Educate Police on Firearms Laws to prevent them needlessly arresting people for legally carrying.
Go after the Importation Ban.
Go after the Hughes Amendment.
Keep on the Defensive, ready to go Offensive at the drop of a hat.

Gunsby_Blazen
June 26, 2008, 03:45 PM
I just said in another thread,
we have the foundation now to launch our offensive. we need to go after the loopholes that would allow for an so called assault weapon ban. that would be the next step.

In my state, we have to take it to the big wings in Chicago, I would normally suggest Springfield, the cap, but thats not where the power is....

Earlier today, I heard some lawyer say that since Heller was a DC case, that it did not effect the states..... That is the kind of krap we are going to be facing now. Thankfully that is a weak argument.

we got to keep it coming...

Cacique500
June 26, 2008, 04:20 PM
The VCDL alert had a very good point on MG's...

9. "Dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected (they consider machine guns to be such a weapon since most people do not own them).

The logic in saying machine guns are not protected because most people don't own one for self--defense (and hence are "unusual") is a circular one. More people WOULD own machine guns if they were EASY and INEXPENSIVE to get! But they aren't because of existing laws that infringed on the ownership of such guns put in place back in 1934 and 1968. Sheesh.

I think that's an extremely valid point - I've got ONE SMG now, and would have more if 1) they were more available (as in post 86 versions) and 2) were not cost prohibitive. If it helps, when the local militia gets called out, I'll bring my SMG. ;)

Dave Markowitz
June 26, 2008, 04:22 PM
On second thought, don't go after CHI. Daley would bankrupt the city even further to defend against it. Go after some little podunk town that can't afford to defend themselves.

I dunno. There's more public impact in knocking a big turd like Daley over than the Podunk Town Council. The morale impact on the antis will be larger, and if even if we get the incorporation ruling we want, if it's against a small town, we'll probably have to sue Chicago to enforce it.

everallm
June 26, 2008, 05:13 PM
1. Chicago, as already stated this is as close to a slam dunk as we can have as the law in place is substantively the same.

In addition there are already "arbitrary and capricious" exceptions and restrictions documented extensively. It also sets the stage for the next Holy Grail of incorporating 2A.

2. NYC and the Sullivan Act.

In this the fine mayor of NYC is already insisting that the current in place rules would meet the SC guidelines. EXCEPT the Sullivan Act and it's implementation means you never OWN your own weapon, merely purchase a temporary 3 year lease which can be rescinded at the will of the police or politicians and with no effective recourse.

3. NJ and/or CA for the "assault weapon" restrictions on type of weapon, cosmetic features pistol grip, adjustable stock, magazine size restrictions.

Here we have the "in common usage" track to go down. For example, in NJ, magazines are capped at 15 rounds capacity. For any semi automatic rifle, it is nigh on impossible to buy 15 round magazines as they are inherently NOT "in common usage". Common usage for say AR-15's is 20 round and 30 round. It would be completely within the realms of legal sense to state the restriction is inherently illegal as it broaches the common usage litmus test. This is the same for the arbitrary lists of "evil" weapons such as an FAL which are inherently and demonstrably common usage.

4. CCW in non CCW states.

Here the possible route is the judgment section that states the constitutionality of the keep and bear for protection.Here you may justifiably posit that protection is agreed to be a fundamental right and NOT solely location based. If so agreed then CCW is inarguably legitimate.

Build the case law THEN 922(o) etc

El Tejon
June 26, 2008, 05:18 PM
Morton Grove

ArmedBear
June 26, 2008, 05:18 PM
Magazine size restrictions are interesting.

It would be a reasonable conclusion, from the "common use" test, that 30-rounders couldn't be banned (or 15-round pistol magazines, or whatever fits in the grip), but that, say, drum magazines for AR's, or 30+ round extended magazines for pistols could be banned.

Of course, a magazine size limit of 30 rounds wouldn't be as restrictive, especially in a semiauto, as a limit of 10 like some states now have. Most larger magazines don't work that well, anyway. It's just an interesting thought...

In this scenario, a token "assault weapons ban" could let the Senators claim to be "doing something" while establishing a legal magazine size limit of 30 or 40 rounds... Beats the hell out of 10, anyway.

obiwan1
June 26, 2008, 05:21 PM
Let The Games Begin!!!!!!!!

shdwfx
June 26, 2008, 05:27 PM
When the technology matures for caseless automatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition) (and phasers/blasters...can't wait) the antis will make a move to ban them before they become "common use."

That's why it is critical to demonstrate that "common use" is prevented by federal and state legislation.

everallm
June 26, 2008, 05:49 PM
SHDWFX

This is why I said after incorporation, nailing down "in common use" is critical by building case law in a structured manner.

I would argue that MG's are in common use based upon the 200K plus already in private hands and registered with BATFE.

I would argue that caseless is a trivial change to ammunition and definitively a direct lineal descendant of blackpowder and therefore in common usage.

I would argue that any weapon using directed energy is a lineal descendant of an existing weapon used by Archimedes and the Greeks over 2200 years ago.

goon
June 26, 2008, 07:51 PM
First, I'd say go for legal, affordable CCW everywhere. Given some of the wording, I'd think that the case for self defense would be the easiest to make.

Then make the case that semi-auto and even full-auto military style weapons can serve as excellent in-home self defense weapons.
I'd say that an AR or FAL loaded with fragmenting ammo is potentially a better tool for that use than a handgun or shotgun, depending on your environment.
More power, more accurate and controllable, and a lot more rounds - The same features that make them good for military use make them good for our self defense needs too.
Since the highlights of Heller I've read seem to focus largely on self defense, it makes sense to use that as a springboard.

RX-178
June 26, 2008, 10:30 PM
I think another good step would be to force them to define reasonable restrictions as regarding only people with felony records, and those who are mentally incompetent to handle a firearm (and not just any outpatient psychology patient. They have to be legally deemed to be incapable of making their own decisions, or similar).


Therefore, a reasonable restriction would apply only to people who can get firearms, and not on specific firearms.

Vaarok
June 26, 2008, 10:43 PM
Sullivan law, please. I live in NY, and I cannot purchase a handgun without four character witnesses, a judge signing off, and registering everything I buy with the police. Just to keep it at home or the range, and God help me if I stop for gas.

M1911Owner
June 26, 2008, 11:15 PM
9. "Dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected (they consider machine guns to be such a weapon since most people do not own them).

The logic in saying machine guns are not protected because most people don't own one for self--defense (and hence are "unusual") is a circular one. More people WOULD own machine guns if they were EASY and INEXPENSIVE to get! But they aren't because of existing laws that infringed on the ownership of such guns put in place back in 1934 and 1968. Sheesh.
Sigh...

Folks, you've got the logic of the ruling backwards and upside down. The underlying concept isn't that machine guns are banned because they're not in common use. It is the opposite--the Justices formulated the "common usage" test specifically to eliminate any right to machine guns from their ruling.

They're not going to be receptive to arguments that machine guns actually are in common usage, or that the reasoning is circular and that MGs would be in common usage if they weren't banned.


(And I honestly didn't sign on here after months of absence to post a bunch of rants about machine guns. It's just that I'm seeing a lot of folks here who aren't understanding that the Court is not going recognize a right to keep and bear machine guns, that that is the whole point of the "common usage" test, and any attempt to get an RKB MGs that is going to result in a clear ruling in favor of a ban.)

Uenoparker
June 26, 2008, 11:27 PM
I'd like to see a challenge to restrictions on purchasing handguns in other states; why can I be trusted to pass a background check in my state of residence, but not in another state???

Recognition of my firearms permit nationwide is expected (drivers licenses work that way, firearms licenses ought be no different).

One big question I'd like settled (the right way, of course) is the potential conflict between 2A and 5A: do the rights of property owners trump those of citizens to bear arms? Typical example: can a property owner ban keeping of arms in my vehicle while on the owner's property?

Some of Scalia's references also open interesting lines of inquiry: can protective vests/garments be banned from civilian use, and can daggers/dirks/swords/switchblades/clubs be banned from civilian keeping and bearing?

shdwfx
June 26, 2008, 11:32 PM
and any attempt to get an RKB MGs that is going to result in a clear ruling in favor of a ban

You may be right, but Scalia is a brilliant jurist if nothing else. I'm sure he clearly understands the circularity of the "common use" standard of measure. It wouldn't surprise me if he put it there on purpose to (1) pacify Kennedy and (2) leave an opening for future clarification. Maybe I'm dreaming.

One step at a time either way. Nobody expects the MG rules to be overturned next year or the next. Probably not even in the next 10 years. It took us 70 years to get to this level of infringement, and it will take awhile to get everything back.

Regardless, "common use" is phrasing that must be further assaulted and clarified, or 100 years from now, ARs and Glocks will be what muskets are to us today and we won't be allowed to own the new tech.

mindwip
June 26, 2008, 11:52 PM
Get rid of all below 30rd mag bans!
Make CCW more standard and shall approve
Get rid of states that make you jump throw hoops to get a gun
State assault bans
State/federal park bans


In that order!

BrianB
June 26, 2008, 11:54 PM
Morton Grove

NRA filed suit against Chicago and several suburbs today. Morton Grove is likely included. I love it when the hounds are released!

M1911Owner
June 27, 2008, 12:13 AM
You may be right, but Scalia is a brilliant jurist if nothing else. I'm sure he clearly understands the circularity of the "common use" standard of measure. It wouldn't surprise me if he put it there on purpose to (1) pacify Kennedy and (2) leave an opening for future clarification. Maybe I'm dreaming.
You might be right about that. The end result, though, 2009-style, is that J. Kennedy will turn thumbs down on any machine gun case that comes before the court, so it will lose, 5-4.

I have to agree with you that J. Scalia must see the circularity of their logic. As do, I assume, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. And probably Kennedy. As do the dissenting Justices, who specifically mocked the test in their dissent. I don't know what their agendas were--I just know it must have been danged hard to come up with an individual rights ruling, connected with a militia purpose, that doesn't automatically legalize the primary infantry weapon of the National Guard. (Especially when you throw Miller into the mix, which I believe held that only weapons of a type that are used by the military are protected by the 2nd.)

HeavyDuty
June 27, 2008, 12:28 AM
Next Steps after Heller?

Incorporation is *critical*.

Hypnogator
June 27, 2008, 12:33 AM
The logic in saying machine guns are not protected because most people don't own one for self--defense (and hence are "unusual") is a circular one. More people WOULD own machine guns if they were EASY and INEXPENSIVE to get! But they aren't because of existing laws that infringed on the ownership of such guns put in place back in 1934 and 1968. Sheesh.

Exactly! However, I think undoing the '86 machine gun ban may be doable at the Congressional level in the foreseeable future. It can be shown that there are more than 200,000 registered machine guns out there, only one of which has ever been used in a crime. I think Scalia's comments on "dangerous" weapons is more intended to fire a shot across the bow of anyone attempting to use the 2nd Amendment to justify possessing hand grenades, RPGs, Sarin, etc.

dmazur
June 27, 2008, 01:43 AM
+1 on incorporation. That allows going after state (and municipal) infringement.

I read that this may have to go to the Supreme Court, and that, in order for that to occur, it will require a "stubborn" defendant. Hmm. Daly?

Next, IMO, is strict scrutiny. I understand this will make an awful lot of the "games" under way illegal. (Ammo registration, microstamping, etc.)

Finally, on my wish list, would be recognition of the right to self-defense as a civil right. The final bogeyman is the employer who infringes your rights at your workplace with threats of termination if you violate company policy.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 27, 2008, 08:52 AM
Looks to me like the key steps are:

1. Incorporation - there are very few laws as nasty as DCs that are strictly federal. If we want the best battleground for litigation we need to attack the onerous state laws in places like Chicago-nois and California. So we need incorporation first.

2. State AWBs - if "common use" is going to be the test, then state AWBs serve a two-pronged purpose. They open up more states to semi-autos (making their usage more common) and they develop the basis for an attack on NFA.

3. 922(o) - What happens when common use is only uncommon due to legislation?

4. NFA - What is the difference between commonly used (protected) semi-autos and unprotected (currently) MGs?

At least that is how I would try to crack that egg. Coordinated effort among gun owners being much like herding cats, I fully expect to see 922(o) and NFA challenges before the incorporation issue has even been decided with the result that several Circuit Court of Appeals will already have bad precedent and be closed off by the time someone like Gura/Levy mount a well-organized attack.

another okie
June 27, 2008, 09:22 AM
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.

I think many of us don't realize how strong the hostility to guns is among the kind of highly educated urban folks that get appointed to courts and such.

ilbob
June 27, 2008, 09:32 AM
Personally, I think a small home rule town in Illinois that actually believes in the 2A should pass an ordinance banning all firearms within its corporate limits, but not enforce it.

Then the NRA can sue them and it can go through the court system fairly quickly since both sides of the issue really want the same thing. Kind of like how there was only one side in the Miller decision.

geekWithA.45
June 27, 2008, 09:33 AM
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.


If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around PLANNING revolution.


There. I fixed it for ya.

I should like to point out that Scalia did NOT close the book on MGs. What he very skillfully did was craft the ruling such that MGs were not deemed to be protected in THIS ruling.

RX-178
June 28, 2008, 03:37 AM
I believe that 922(o) can be challenged in the near future, but not until we systematically take apart any bans targeting specific types of weapons (based on features, etc.).

The NFA, I can't see being challenged at all, except for how it's at the discretion of local law enforcement. Altering the NFA to put the burden of proof on the law enforcement whether they believe a person will commit a crime with an NFA weapon would certainly be one good step ahead.

If we can set a precedent that bans on specific classes of firearms is not covered by 'reasonable restriction', then eventually we could get 922(o) taken as a ban on a class of firearms. Machineguns will still be 'restricted and regulated' as per the NFA, but the registry would be opened.

dburkhead
June 28, 2008, 05:53 AM
What are the odds that at least one SC Justice will retire during the next Presidential term? This was a 5-4 decision. A single change of Justice could turn it the other way.

Maybe the "next step" is to work hard to get a President that is less likely to appoint, and/or a Senate less likely to confirm, a Justice that would reverse the ruling.

denfoote
June 28, 2008, 07:38 AM
What are the odds that at least one SC Justice will retire during the next Presidential term? This was a 5-4 decision. A single change of Justice could turn it the other way.

Maybe the "next step" is to work hard to get a President that is less likely to appoint, and/or a Senate less likely to confirm, a Justice that would reverse the ruling.

As much as I hate to say it, it means pulling the lever for John McCain!!! :banghead:

yokel
June 28, 2008, 08:03 AM
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.

That would have perhaps been the world's first violent revolution by the people against the ruling government to be staged on the Internet.

THR leads the charge!

bogie
June 28, 2008, 08:19 AM
Guys, I'm voting against Obama. Which means voting for the candidate most likely to make sure he doesn't get to stuff another moonbat in the Supreme Court... Which means I won't be voting for Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Bob Barr, or even Ross Perot. I'll walk in, hold my nose, and vote for McCain.

KD5NRH
June 28, 2008, 09:49 AM
Use the amicus briefs filed in support of DC as a laundry list for elected (and appointed, for that matter) office housecleaning across the country.

You could also use that list and others to write letters to various organizations and their individual members that you may have influence with, (obviously only the ones not specifically created for gun control lobbying - I doubt a well-written letter to the VPC is going to do any good even if you happen to be a member's best customer) and remind them that some of their customers don't appreciate their attitudes, and might be inclined to do business elsewhere.

abrink
July 2, 2008, 03:43 PM
Well i recommend we all participate in OC day. This will be a big step after Heller. Hopefully we can get the media involved in this. If the see enough OCer's they will probably get themselves involved.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=367735

romma
July 2, 2008, 04:00 PM
How do you get common use of full-auto if they are heavily regulated out of the price range of your average person?

I mean, poll everyone that has a semi-auto AR type rifle and ask them if they had the choice for burst or full-auto on their selectors, would they want it...

What do you think the answer would be?

If you enjoyed reading about "Next Steps after Heller?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!