Heller didn't win his case.


PDA






GigaBuist
June 29, 2008, 01:59 AM
I've been seeing comments about "Heller" winning "his" case lately and that bothers me. I tried clearing it up in one thread, but that buried itself pretty early. I another thread I made a rather snarky comment to another member and annotated it admitting I was at fault there and shouldn't be doing that.

You see, the "Heller" case wasn't always "Heller." When the 2nd District Court heard it it was "Parker" and before that there were four other plaintiffs.

The whole case was the brain child of Robert Levy. Mr. Heller did not stand up one day and challenge DC's handgun ban. Levy dreamt up the case and he "shopped" for people that would have standing.

He eventually decided on 6 people without any "baggage" -- ie: criminal record, and people that represented different walks of life. Also, obviously, they had to have an interest in striking down the law.

I'm not sure of the particulars or the who's-who of the original plaintiffs but Levy wanted a mix of people from different races and economic means. That means a black guy, a black woman, a white guy with money, a white guy without much money, etc. Levy was covering every angle. Mr. Heller simply filled a slot and he happened to be the one granted standing in the Supreme Court case because his permit to keep a pistol was actually denied.

I have no idea if the other plaintiffs even applied for one, if they were denied, or if their applications were simply never answered.

Again: Heller did not win his case.

A lawyer, Robert Levy, God bless him, won his case by carefully constructing it and executing it well.

Mr Heller helped out, and I appreciate that, but, for lack of a better word, he was simply a pawn.

I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Heller at all. Far from it. I just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.

These are importing things to understand when trying to bring further court cases to extend the right to keep and bear arms.

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller didn't win his case." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo Flyer
June 29, 2008, 02:03 AM
Heller,Levy,Gura,whoever ,the case was won.
That is the only thing that matters.
Everything else is simply trivia.

Funderb
June 29, 2008, 02:03 AM
The case title is still heller vs DC,

so, Its nice to recognize the people behind the scene,
but things are nominal because they are, not because it's true.

just like a 2x4 is not a 2x4, no one wants to call it a 1.5x3.5 or a 1.75x3.75 depending on the supplier.
It's still going to be Heller v DC and thats the way it is.

Just be glad it was ruled the way it was. Baby steps.

Big45
June 29, 2008, 02:04 AM
Thanks for clearing that up.

John828
June 29, 2008, 02:07 AM
"GigaBuist," you must be an attorney. I respect your field. Thank you for you assistance in keeping society within its stated realms.

justin 561
June 29, 2008, 02:19 AM
just like a 2x4 is not a 2x4, no one wants to call it a 1.5x3.5 or a 1.75x3.75 depending on the supplier.
It's still going to be Heller v DC and thats the way it is.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

heritageguy
June 29, 2008, 02:20 AM
Whatever! :rolleyes:

musher
June 29, 2008, 02:27 AM
It's still going to be Heller v DC and thats the way it is.

DC v Heller actually

sailortoo
June 29, 2008, 02:50 AM
My - so many nits to pick - so little time! It will go down in history as "D.C. v Heller", no matter who pulled the strings, nor how many lawyers sent out humungous (or not) billing. As the dust settles, so to speak, the really important aspects of the ruling will become the center focus - and I'm really looking forward to it. :)
sailortoo

fjolnirsson
June 29, 2008, 02:52 AM
just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.

This is the important bit. It would be wise for us to pay attention here.
Giga isn't an attorney (at least I've never heard him mention it. If I recall correctly, he works in computers), but he does have a knack, in my experience, for seeing and predicting results rather correctly, as well as seeing to the heart of things.

In order to capitalize on Heller, we must know WHY we won. We won because a very intelligent attorney crafted an excellent case on purpose. Future wins can not be allowed to happen by accident, if we want to continue to have our rights acknowledged in increasing amounts.

Remander
June 29, 2008, 02:55 AM
I think I read that some of the other plaintiffs were tossed for standing reasons.

You are right that the lawyers who planned the case chose a variety of plaintiffs (so that they had all the bases covered). Good job, lawyers!

The name of the case is now and forever District of Columbia v. Heller. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)

It started out as Parker v. District of Columbia (Parker filed the suit), but Heller won at the lower levels. The Supreme Court renames cases with the petitioner's (loser's) name listed first.

Again: GOOD JOB, LAWYERS!!!

The NRA is boasting of the win (and filing suits based on the precedent), but if you read up on it you will find that they were late to the party, and even fought the case getting going. I'm a member, but I've got to call a spade ...

Bartholomew Roberts
June 29, 2008, 02:58 AM
I have no idea if the other plaintiffs even applied for one, if they were denied, or if their applications were simply never answered.

The other plaintiffs were unable to even apply for a license because they had to legally own a firearm and be D.C. residents before they could ask for the permit; but if they owned a firearm without a permit, they were already in violation of the law.

IIRC, Heller was able to beat the Catch-22 because he legally owned the firearm for his security job - so he could apply for a permit to keep it at home after work.

Hunter0924
June 29, 2008, 04:05 AM
Let's be thankful we won and not quibble so much on the details.
I am sure strategy played a big part in the victory.

22-rimfire
June 29, 2008, 08:56 AM
Cases of this nature usually don't just happen. They are selected and financed to achieve a certain results and court precedent. I have no idea what this case cost if Mr. Heller was actually paying the attorney's, but it would be astronomical.

everallm
June 29, 2008, 08:59 AM
At the point of this is ?

It makes no difference to the case, the outcome or the basis upon which it was raised.

22-rimfire
June 29, 2008, 09:05 AM
The point is that a case was selected that ran through the court system all the way to the US Supreme Court. I'm glad the Supreme Coutr selected it as the decision cements the individual right interpretation of the Constitution which was long overdue. Choosing this case was important as the outcome went directly to the Second Amendment.

It makes no difference to the case, the outcome or the basis upon which it was raised.

Why is that?

Rosstradamus
June 29, 2008, 09:36 AM
My - so many nits to pick - so little time!

+1

Dravur
June 29, 2008, 09:43 AM
Ok, so it was Levy, but the case was named Heller....

Plus... Whoever heard of..
Levy Kitty instead of Heller Kitty...

Heller high water vs Levy or High Water.

It was a Heller of a case vs It was a Levy of a case...

See, Heller is just a ton more fun. Many more puns to explore... Levy just does not lend itself to puns...

but give it a crack.

I aint gonna Levy my gun rights at the Supreme Court..

See, not nearly as elegant.

tepin
June 29, 2008, 09:47 AM
I dont get-it. What is the point?

hso
June 29, 2008, 10:09 AM
The point is that we need to remember that legal challenges are won by the attorneys and not by the people the case is named after. In this case it went far beyond an attorney representing a client. Mr. Levy developed the strategy, applied good legal tactics, selected the complainant's (of which Mr. Heller was only one) and due to his skill and determination all American benefited. Mr. Levy and his team did the work.

Double Naught Spy
June 29, 2008, 10:09 AM
Okay GigaBuist, you are making a semantic point. Semantics can be critical when it comes to clarifications or distinctions in understanding.

Just how does your semantic issue help with clarification or understanding of the case in question?

If you wanted to be technical, Levy didn't win the case either. There was considerable effort involved with several legal teams.

usmarine0352_2005
June 29, 2008, 10:16 AM
And so......were supposed to hate Heller for the "unjustified fame he's getting?


I've been seeing comments about "Heller" winning "his" case lately and that bothers me. I tried clearing it up in one thread, but that buried itself pretty early. I another thread I made a rather snarky comment to another member and annotated it admitting I was at fault there and shouldn't be doing that.

You see, the "Heller" case wasn't always "Heller." When the 2nd District Court heard it it was "Parker" and before that there were four other plaintiffs.

The whole case was the brain child of Robert Levy. Mr. Heller did not stand up one day and challenge DC's handgun ban. Levy dreamt up the case and he "shopped" for people that would have standing.

He eventually decided on 6 people without any "baggage" -- ie: criminal record, and people that represented different walks of life. Also, obviously, they had to have an interest in striking down the law.

I'm not sure of the particulars or the who's-who of the original plaintiffs but Levy wanted a mix of people from different races and economic means. That means a black guy, a black woman, a white guy with money, a white guy without much money, etc. Levy was covering every angle. Mr. Heller simply filled a slot and he happened to be the one granted standing in the Supreme Court case because his permit to keep a pistol was actually denied.

I have no idea if the other plaintiffs even applied for one, if they were denied, or if their applications were simply never answered.

Again: Heller did not win his case.

A lawyer, Robert Levy, God bless him, won his case by carefully constructing it and executing it well.

Mr Heller helped out, and I appreciate that, but, for lack of a better word, he was simply a pawn.

I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Heller at all. Far from it. I just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.

These are importing things to understand when trying to bring further court cases to extend the right to keep and bear arms.



Forever in history, the most important 2nd Amendment case says, "D.C. v. Heller", not D.C. v. Gura or D.C. v. Levy.


Heller is forever named in making the 2nd Amendment an Individual right.

Starship1st
June 29, 2008, 10:18 AM
We the people won and there are many people involved that worked on this case. I am not going to deminish Heller's standing in history. :cool:

Funderb
June 29, 2008, 10:36 AM
DC v heller, my bad!

The Annoyed Man
June 29, 2008, 11:25 AM
Plus... Whoever heard of..

...

Heller high water vs Levy or High Water.
I generally hate puns, but that there is funny, I don't care who you are. :D

Eleven Mike
June 29, 2008, 11:45 AM
And "Roe" was just a pawn in Roe v Wade, FWIW. Those lawyers went shopping, too.

basicblur
June 29, 2008, 11:46 AM
The NRA is boasting of the win (and filing suits based on the precedent), but if you read up on it you will find that they were late to the party, and even fought the case getting going. I'm a member, but I've got to call a spade ...
From what I understand, the NRA was leery 'bout carrying this case to the Supreme Court because they were afraid the ruling would go against 'em. Based on the 5-4 vote, were they really (that) wrong? (It shoulda been 9-0).
After they couldn't persuade the parties involved, and it was obvious Heller et al were going to pursue it, the NRA threw their weight behind it.
I'm going to give the NRA the benefit of the doubt on this one-don't know that I can blame 'em for thinking this was a fight for another day.
Yeah, yeah...everybody can take exception with that because we won-if Kennedy had gone the other way I can see the finger pointing now!

brickeyee
June 29, 2008, 12:12 PM
Cases get their nomenclature from the parties involved, NOT the lawyers who argue.

GigaBuist
June 29, 2008, 12:49 PM
Mr. Levy developed the strategy, applied good legal tactics, selected the complainant's (of which Mr. Heller was only one) and due to his skill and determination all American benefited.

Bingo.

I don't want anybody looking at this, thinking that the little guy wins if he pushes hard enough, and pulling another Wayne Fincher.

Wayne's right, in my mind. He didn't do anything wrong... but he's in prison and there's another case on the books that doesn't help gun owner's at all.

October
June 29, 2008, 02:27 PM
From what I understand, the NRA was leery 'bout carrying this case to the Supreme Court because they were afraid the ruling would go against 'em. Based on the 5-4 vote, were they really (that) wrong?

Yes, they were wrong. The vote proves it. If you want to talk degrees of wrongness, will you argue that the New England Patriots didn’t really lose the Super Bowl because they were only down by one field goal at the end of the game?

I'm going to give the NRA the benefit of the doubt on this one-don't know that I can blame 'em for thinking this was a fight for another day.

What doubt is there? With hindsight, we know the outcome. The only doubt remaining is how long would we have to wait before achieving a victory of this magnitude if the NRA strategy had been followed?

Getting back to the original point of this thread...
Again: Heller did not win his case.

The way I read it, he did. From Justice Scalia’s opinion:

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Heller got what he wanted – that’s pretty much a win under any definition you can come up with.

nutty7462
June 29, 2008, 02:30 PM
just like a 2x4 is not a 2x4, no one wants to call it a 1.5x3.5 or a 1.75x3.75

or a tubafor

Cosmoline
June 29, 2008, 02:35 PM
Of course Heller won his case. The fact that it was an orchestrated challenge means nothing. Most of these major Constitutional challenges have been orchestrated. There's nothing wrong with it. He was the appellee to the Supreme Court.

kd7nqb
June 29, 2008, 03:12 PM
Your right Heller didnt win the American people did and freedom in general. I assume that most "big" cases that make it to the SCOTUS are orchestrated in one way or the other. Thats fine with me.

Harve Curry
June 29, 2008, 03:24 PM
Thanks for bringing up and reminding us of the evolution of this case.
DC vs Heller will forever be the name of the case.
It is beyond trivia or whatever it is history.
An important part of our Bill of Rights, keeping it aimed in the right direction of freedom.

jakemccoy
June 29, 2008, 03:28 PM
I do not mean to denigrate Mr. Heller at all. Far from it. I just wish to call to attention WHY and HOW this case succeeded along with WHO really made it happen.

These are importing things to understand when trying to bring further court cases to extend the right to keep and bear arms.

Point taken, I get it.

eliphalet
June 29, 2008, 03:41 PM
Hats off to Mr. Levy, he sounds like a true patriot to me.

Remander
June 29, 2008, 03:57 PM
http://www.bookitinc.com/pictures12/924527.jpg

Eleven Mike
June 29, 2008, 05:50 PM
Cool! I remember that one. Let's send a copy to Fenty, Daley, the justices in the minority, and a few others. :D

basicblur
June 29, 2008, 06:29 PM
What doubt is there? With hindsight, we know the outcome.
Ah yes…hindsight allows us all to appear so intelligent & wise, does it not?

The only doubt remaining is how long would we have to wait before achieving a victory of this magnitude if the NRA strategy had been followed?
Maybe until they thought there were more justices on the court who don’t believe The Constitution is a living document and would vote accordingly?
A "victory of this magnitude"?
Hell, man...we just squeaked by!

As earlier stated, if Kennedy had gone the other way I’ll wager a LOT of folks vilifying the NRA over this would be pointing fingers and assessing blame. There were a lot of folks thinking the margin would have been 6-3 or 7-2 that seem to be surprised how close the vote was (I wasn't one of 'em).

Just thank your lucky stars we dodged a bullet (this time)!

velobard
June 29, 2008, 06:46 PM
Cases of this nature usually don't just happen. They are selected and financed to achieve a certain results and court precedent. I have no idea what this case cost if Mr. Heller was actually paying the attorney's, but it would be astronomical.
Which is why Miller went so wrong. :cuss:

goon
June 29, 2008, 06:50 PM
Actually, I think we all won on this case.

October
June 29, 2008, 08:11 PM
Ah yes…hindsight allows us all to appear so intelligent & wise, does it not?

Only if you learn from it. In this case, one of the lessons learned is that the NRA does not always advocate the best strategy when it comes to Second Amendment rights – no matter how you characterize their degree of wrongness. Maybe this will result in the NRA reassessing their strategy and finding ways to improve it.

The only doubt remaining is how long would we have to wait before achieving a victory of this magnitude if the NRA strategy had been followed?
Maybe until they thought there were more justices on the court who don’t believe The Constitution is a living document and would vote accordingly?

And when would that be? 10 years? 100 years? Maybe never? What was the NRA’s timeline for pursuing this type of victory? The bottom line is that this strategy resulted in an outcome that is better than what the NRA was advocating.

A "victory of this magnitude"?
Hell, man...we just squeaked by!

Doesn’t matter if you win by 1 or 100 points – a win is a win. Or, to put it another way, would you rather have 5-4 win now, or a 6-3 win 20 or 30 years from now?

As earlier stated, if Kennedy had gone the other way I’ll wager a LOT of folks vilifying the NRA over this would be pointing fingers and assessing blame.

And I’d be saying we should have listened to the NRA. But Kennedy didn’t go the other way, Heller didn’t lose his case, and this case showed that the NRA's strategy was too conservative.


Just thank your lucky stars we dodged a bullet (this time)!

I’ll thank my stars that there was someone with the wisdom and resources necessary to pursue a better strategy than the NRA had.

Gunnerpalace
June 29, 2008, 08:17 PM
Actually, I think we all won on this case

Nope, No we never gonna get machine guns they will ban CCW and reinstate the AWB, and there will be registration, and fees, And

(SMACK, again)


We won the case, the now 50 thread are all negativity in my opinion, I'll be in Tools and Tech for a few days until everybody comes back.

Acera
June 29, 2008, 09:06 PM
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

From, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Warren
June 29, 2008, 09:36 PM
As long as nits are being harvested, I say it would have been real cool had the man's last name been Marvel.

daniel (australia)
June 29, 2008, 10:14 PM
From this side of a wide ocean it seems that a crucially important point has been missed here, and that is that not only did Levy act for Heller, but he planned the whole matter right from scratch, recruited the plaintiffs, ran the case all the way and funded the whole thing from his own money. That is what you call putting your principles into action, and my hat is off to the man.

Logan5
June 29, 2008, 11:04 PM
If you follow Supreme Court jurisprudence at all, you're probably glad that Heller wasn't one of these plaintiffs who's case just happened to end up in front of our nation's highest court. I was always amazed that there were people, real people, in history who ended up in front of the Supreme Court with their divorce or something... Almost always an unmitigated disaster.

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller didn't win his case." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!