Heller II is a go, latest comments from BFA


PDA






gopguy
July 31, 2008, 10:07 AM
You have to hand it to Washington DC Mayor, Adrian Fenty, There are not too many people can be so arrogant as to get themselves sued by the same person, for the same reasons in just over a month.

This is my latest article for Buckeye Firearms, dealing with the fact Dick Heller is now having to sue the city of Washington DC again to get them to obey the United States Supreme Court. The new suit does take on some new issues such as a the limitless licensing fee in DC as well. A link to the lawsuit complaint is within the text of the story, so you can read every detail of it for yourself. Feel free to share the link with family and friends. ;)

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5881


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller II is a go, latest comments from BFA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Seancass
July 31, 2008, 10:20 AM
Heller is a man who get's 'er done.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381228&highlight=heller

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381220&highlight=heller

gopguy
July 31, 2008, 01:37 PM
With apologies, the direct link to the case was omitted. Here it is.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/0728heller.pdf

paramedic70002
August 1, 2008, 06:25 PM
Dick Heller is a superstar!

How long til we have a new round, new weapon, something, that bears his name?

(That S&W snubbie with the scales of justice doesn't count)

Heller Special 7 or 8 round cylinder in .38 Sp.

40 Heller in a semiauto (designed to never hold more than 12 rounds)

physics
August 1, 2008, 07:01 PM
You know, if Heller is a drinking man, I don't think he'll ever buy a beer again.

Vader
August 1, 2008, 07:32 PM
I previously stated here or on another website that this (Heller vs. DC) was a Pyrrhic victory. My honest opinion

anarchris
August 1, 2008, 07:40 PM
previously stated here or on another website that this (Heller vs. DC) was a Pyrrhic victory. My honest opinion
but we all have opinions and ideas, don't we.

gopguy
August 1, 2008, 07:49 PM
Heller was a major victory. Granted that while DC is dragging its feet, the case has paid off elsewhere. Wilmette and Morton Grove Illinois, have thrown in the towel on their gun bans.

DC will lose in the end. Perhaps the people in that town will learn to stop blindly voting for anti-freedom Democrats and stop seeing their money wasted in fruitless lawsuits to fight the US Constitution...

Vader
August 1, 2008, 07:49 PM
Pyrrhic victory:
A Pyrrhic victory is one that is more devastating logistically to the victor than the vanquished. Named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Roman Army twice in 280 and 279 B.C., suffering insurmountable damage to his own forces.
Whatever Pyrrhus won, he lost by going on to new adventures, like a lucky gambler who does not know when to stop. What he won by great actions he lost by vain hopes. Because of his desires for new conquests, he lost what he had already won. On and on he went, building new ambitions on the ruins of old ones, and never finishing what he started.
- Plutarch
Although not in the same sense of the situation, the semantics are similar. Let's hope that I am wrong

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2008, 11:58 PM
It was in my view, based on my experience from having lived in the D.C. metro area, difficult for anyone to have been a worse Mayor for Washington D.C. than Marion Barry. But I do think Adrian Fenty has crossed that low threshold with his incompetence.

Nowhere to go but up, right? Uhhh... right?

BarryKirk
August 2, 2008, 09:10 AM
Hopefully, Fenty's new gun registration laws will be the Pyrrhic Victory

Jason M
August 2, 2008, 09:28 AM
"...the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Register the gun and get a permit to carry it in your own home? :barf:

Honestly, Fenty and any other official that is standing in the way of Heller registering his handgun and keeping it at the ready in his home is in contempt of court and should face endictment by the Grand Jury on that charge. What is the minimum prison sentence for being in contempt of court and defying the ruling of the S.C.O.T.U.S., I wonder? Probably longer than that p.o.s. Mayor's pathetic term!

-Jason

ctdonath
August 2, 2008, 11:21 AM
(Heller vs. DC) was a Pyrrhic victory.
What about the win was so costly that the winners would never try such an approach again?

DC is paying Mr. Heller's legal fees. Mr. Heller just filed another suit against DC. Gura filed suits against Chicago & SF. Heller has been brought up in several cases already. Lots of other cases are being prepped with Heller as the foundation.

Hardly a "Pyrrhic victory".

One of Many
August 2, 2008, 11:37 AM
One question that may not have been addressed by the Heller ruling: Is the City required to register MORE than one handgun? Dick Heller is being allowed to register the one handgun that he originally attempted to register, and was refused permission to register; that handgun is THE handgun that the city was ordered to register by the Supreme Court. Technically, the City has complied with that part of the ruling. Is there anything in the Heller ruling that forces the City to register more than one handgun?

XD Fan
August 2, 2008, 11:51 AM
One of Many, I am in no way a legal scholar, but that is an interesting question. I had not thought of the implications of that. I think that would clearly violate the spirit of the heller ruling, but D.C. is not worried about that.

El Tejon
August 2, 2008, 11:58 AM
I previously stated here or on another website that this (Heller vs. DC) was a Pyrrhic victory. My honest opinion

How? How could Heller be considered Pyrrhic? And how did you arrive at this opinion, Vader?:confused:

Is there anything in the Heller ruling that forces the City to register more than one handgun?

One, yes, the Heller decision.:D

Scalia did not make any distinction between pistols and revolvers or limit the amount of handguns one could keep. D.C.'s moronic magic thinking to the contrary.

Halbrook is going to make them pay dearly for this stupidity, and this is will be another major victory for us. Have patience, this is like building a skyscraper, it will not happen overnight.

TexasRifleman
August 2, 2008, 12:00 PM
I previously stated here or on another website that this (Heller vs. DC) was a Pyrrhic victory. My honest opinion

And probably unlearned opinion.

Have you ever studied construction?

Does the concept of a "keystone" mean anything?

Heller is the keystone for what will be built. You can't build an arch without a keystone.

I don't remember anyone ever saying that Heller was anything other than the "first".

If you call laying the foundation for what will be built later "Pyrrhic" then well, you go right ahead I guess.
Exactly what is our "devastating cost" for Heller?

Vibe
August 2, 2008, 01:25 PM
The handgun that Heller was originally refused the "privilege" of registering was an H&R 9 shot revolver. What he attempted to register after the SCOTUS decision was a 45 caliber 1911. So technically, it was NOT the same gun that SCOTUS ordered DC to allow him to register. Nitpicky point, but an important one.

lacoochee
August 2, 2008, 02:09 PM
The SCOTUS decision did not say that the original pistol had to be registered at all. The type was never mentioned in the decision only that it should be off common use, a 1911 is certainly in common use. Why is everyone intent on giving DC an out on this, it all sounds like "sea lawyering" at this point.

In the end this is great for us, same case again, same circumstances broader questions this is how it gets done. This one actually might destroy the concept of machine gun as a definition because DC has chosen to slap that label on anything semi-automatic with a capacity of 12+ rounds. The next decision will have to address machine guns and since SCOTUS can't define a machine gun outside of what is presented to it in the case. They will have to strike down the ban in DC (and all federal legislation) against "machine guns".

XD Fan
August 2, 2008, 02:20 PM
The next decision will have to address machine guns and since SCOTUS can't define a machine gun outside of what is presented to it in the case. They will have to strike down the ban in DC (and all federal legislation) against "machine guns".

I hope you are right about this. I am not certain it will go that far (stiking down all laws about machineguns). For one thing I do not think Kennedy will go that far.

Vibe
August 2, 2008, 03:00 PM
lacoochee
No one is "giving" DC an "out" on this. That is simply the explanation for the "out" they are attempting to take. The original complaint was about a revolver, so the decision - tightly decided-was about revolvers as far as DC is concerned. The "of common use" phrase was NOT part of the complaint, and as such was not part of the constraints put upon the law. Regardless of what the courts Dicta may have mentioned. Looks like Heller and his lawyer knew this and intend to rectify it.

Deanimator
August 2, 2008, 03:36 PM
Heller was a major victory. Granted that while DC is dragging its feet, the case has paid off elsewhere. Wilmette and Morton Grove Illinois, have thrown in the towel on their gun bans.
Not only that, but I read on a Chicago cop's blog this morning that Daley is making noises about backing down on Chicago's ban.

It's looking VERY bad for the other side.

akodo
August 2, 2008, 03:55 PM
Some reply that heller is a loss because SCOTUS demanded DC give him a permit to have a handgun in his home.

Be aware that was the ruling because that is what was asked for. Note, Heller did NOT ask that he be allowed to keep a handgun without a permit. Hence, SCOTUS could not have made that ruling.

Just because SCOTUS said "DC give Heller a permit" in no way means that SCOTUS has ruled if permitting is an infringment of a right. That is an entirely different case.

As I see it, once Heller went in and got denied after the ruling, he could have gone one of two ways, go back to court and say

Strategy One: "Why do I even need a permit, all these waiting periods and special demands are two restrictive"

or he could go back and say

Strategy Two: "Gun A is substantially the same as Gun B, theirfore if denying me a permit for Gun A denies me my individual rights, so does denying me a permit for gun B"

Or in some ways combine strategy one and two by saying 'every time you make a ruling they come up with more demands, and more narrow rulings to allow only gun A but not gun B by cooking up new terms and restrictions. Who knows what's next, that I ahve my name engraved on it? that I must allow it to be inspected once a year? clearly the cure is to stop any need for permits"

I hope they go for the combo strategy

1010011010
August 2, 2008, 04:11 PM
TexasRifleman, I think you want "cornerstone" rather than "keystone".

It was pretty obvious that more cases would be on the way to narrow down the exact location of the line. The only surprising part is that it seems to be the same case.

JCMAG
August 2, 2008, 04:31 PM
The same case it may be, but that is, as I see it, because the first case was not finished. Decision was made but action was averted. Heller is going back to finish the job. God bless him, we should all be glad.

And we should all support him.

rodregier
August 2, 2008, 06:12 PM
Will Mr. Heller live long enough for the second case to make it thru the Supreme Court?

TexasRifleman
August 2, 2008, 06:23 PM
Will Mr. Heller live long enough for the second case to make it thru the Supreme Court?

I bet this one doesn't get that far.

Now that the original case has been ruled on the lower courts have something to go by.

That was why the original case was the cornerstone, it will be what subsequent cases are based on for years.


TexasRifleman, I think you want "cornerstone" rather than "keystone".

Probably. Keystone is the one used in building an arch if I remember, the cornerstone is for foundations.
Been too long since I was in an engineering class :)

dalepres
August 2, 2008, 10:54 PM
Dick Heller is now having to sue the city of Washington DC again to get them to obey the United States Supreme Court.

Please remember that the District of Columbia chose not to follow the Constitution and has chosen not to follow the orders of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. What different outcome do you or Heller expect from another lawsuit?

CypherNinja
August 2, 2008, 11:11 PM
Probably. Keystone is the one used in building an arch if I remember, the cornerstone is for foundations.
Been too long since I was in an engineering class

I think the major point is that in arch construction, the 'keystone' is typically the Last stone put in. ;)

Not only that, but I read on a Chicago cop's blog this morning that Daley is making noises about backing down on Chicago's ban.

Oooooh! Linky?

TCB in TN
August 2, 2008, 11:21 PM
The handgun that Heller was originally refused the "privilege" of registering was an H&R 9 shot revolver. What he attempted to register after the SCOTUS decision was a 45 caliber 1911. So technically, it was NOT the same gun that SCOTUS ordered DC to allow him to register. Nitpicky point, but an important one.

It is also a point that SCOTUS addressed pretty clearly with the "common use" language. DC can call a semi handgun a WMD for all I care, but when SCOTUS has already stated that an outright ban on items in common use would NOT be acceptable, then the writing is literally already on the wall.

TexasRifleman
August 2, 2008, 11:34 PM
I think the major point is that in arch construction, the 'keystone' is typically the Last stone put in.

Ahh LOL. You're right. Been too long since I took that class :)

scrat
August 3, 2008, 12:34 AM
Dick heller is an awesome man. this is the kind of person who needs to be running the nra. we need to have a dick heller day

LightningJoe
August 3, 2008, 01:33 AM
What different outcome do you or Heller expect from another lawsuit?


This, I think, is the important question. Lawsuits against DC post-Heller will be decided in view of the Supreme Court decision, DC will lose, and that's it. But who can make DC obey?


Will Congress intervene and punish DC's government? For guns? How? What good would court orders do when DC was already ignoring the courts?


If DC effectively resists the decisions of the courts, I don't know what anybody can or would do.


But if DC continues to refuse to accept its limited defeat, if it keeps getting sued and losing, thus increasing the scope of its defeat, it seems to me that enforcing its own gun laws would become increasingly difficult, that is, the DC gun laws will cease to have any effect.


If DC has lost a string of lawsuits (at least one decided by the Supreme Court) and it then tries to throw somebody in jail over its phony-baloney gun laws, then it might get somebody's attention.


If DC just accepted the Heller decision and worked within it, DC could still make gun ownership very hard. But if it won't play the game, people may just start to ignore it and do whatever they want.


The hardest thing then would be legally obtaining guns. Just because residents of DC conclude that the gun laws can no longer be enforced, that doesn't mean anybody would be willing to sell to them.

Vibe
August 3, 2008, 06:11 AM
Will Mr. Heller live long enough for the second case to make it thru the Supreme Court?
He won't be the first not to. Remember Miller.

Blackbeard
August 3, 2008, 09:13 AM
I just hope he doesn't meet with an accident before the case is decided. It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

silentpoet
August 3, 2008, 10:44 AM
No it is not dangerous, ask Vince Foster.

Vibe
August 3, 2008, 10:51 AM
I just hope he doesn't meet with an accident before the case is decided. It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
In Hellers case, it won't make any difference. It's his lawyer and it's backer that are driving it. Heller was CHOSEN from among several candidates to carry this case. He really was not the initiator.

Yoda
August 3, 2008, 02:35 PM
I'd sure like to try to talk some common sense into DC. I know, it would be like trying to educate a pig on the finer points of quantum mechanics, but still...

If "gun safey" were DC's REAL interest, then they OUGHT to want folks to register 1911's. After all, the 1911 has two safeties (a friend counts the out-of-battery thingee as a third) while a revolver has none. In addition, a citizen trying to defend himself is generally much more likely to hit his target--and miss innocent bystanders--with a semi-auto than with a revolver. I know some of you may disagree, but if you want "safe storage," then you're much more likely to get compliance if you left folks keep a loaded magazine on hand for a semi-auto than expect them to keep loose ammo or a speed loader.

Just my $0.02

- - - Yoda

If at first you don't succeed, you're probably doing it wrong.

Flyboy
August 3, 2008, 04:26 PM
Why is everyone intent on giving DC an out on this, it all sounds like "sea lawyering" at this point.
It's not "sea lawyering," it's examining the opposition's argument. By looking at it carefully, and holding it up against the ruling the is the cornerstone for future actions, we can figure out where it is strong, where it is weak, and how to attack it.

That's not "sea lawyering," that's "smart lawyering."

Cliff47
August 3, 2008, 09:04 PM
Check out HR 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, which specifically addresses the tactics of the D.C. city government. Details may be found at: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/ . Enjoy the reading, and wait for the wailing.

gopguy
August 5, 2008, 03:52 PM
Looks indeed like the more conservative freshman Democrats in Congress are a little worried they may get tarred by the Republicans because of their anti gun cousins in the DC Government. They are actually talking about a bill to take this out of the hands of DC city Government. This may make it through the House but I suspect the much more liberal, and anti-gun Senate will kill this effort...

August 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Dem Eats Dem: Congress Set To Take Control Of D.C.’s Gun Laws
by Bill Dupray in: 2nd Amendment, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Democrats, Freedom, Law, Supreme Court
After the Supreme Court threw out D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you would think the District of Columbia government would obey the Court’s ruling; it is the Supreme Court, after all. But D.C. officials, despite having been found to have trampled on Americans’ Constitutional rights for thirty years, decided they liked their law and left in place a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which includes nearly all handguns.

These D.C. liberals are so lawless and out of control that the Democrats in Congress have decided that District officials may be unfit to make their own gun laws. From the Washington Post.

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District, making it easier for D.C. residents to acquire pistols, including semiautomatics, while eliminating the strict handgun-storage requirements imposed by the city.

Supporters say the bill has a good chance of passing the House, where pro-gun measures are popular. But it is unclear whether it would succeed in the Senate, where complex rules make it harder to push through legislation.

And of course all of this has become necessary because D.C. Democrats cannot be trusted to follow the law.

The measure, filed Thursday by several conservative Democrats, adds more fuel to the debate over gun control in the nation’s capital. After a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision June 26 ended the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban, the District replaced the ban with strict handgun limits, which critics say violate the high court’s ruling. [snip]

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said supporters of the measure think that the city has “basically thumbed its nose” at the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision by enacting tough limits on handgun ownership.

The law proposed by congressional Democrats would follow the Court’s ruling and D.C. residents would be freed of the bonds of their freedom-denying overlords.

The bill would scrap those limits, allowing residents to own handguns without registering them with the D.C. police department, provided they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

Besides abolishing the requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded in their homes and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks, the measure would repeal the city’s prohibition on most magazine-fed semiautomatic handguns — a ban that has been in effect for decades and was not part of the Supreme Court case.

The legislation also would allow D.C. residents to buy and take delivery of handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Federal law currently prohibits gun buyers from acquiring the weapons in states where they do not reside.

We hear shrill cries from Liberals and ACLU types when President Bush wants to eavesdrop on terrorist phone calls coming into the United States. They whine that our civil liberties and privacy rights are being violated and that Bush is shredding the Constitution. The media let’s them get away with it, even though nobody has ever produced a single person whose rights were violated by these programs.

Then we have a bunch of lawless liberals, who were not only found by the United States Supreme Court to have violated their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights, but who continue their rogue behavior by enacting a law they know is still not in compliance with the Court’s ruling. Now it is to the point they are so out of control, they cannot be trusted to write laws and their authority will likely be taken from them.

Where is the media outcry about the chronic, criminal behavior of D.C. officials violating American Constitutional rights?

romeo212000
August 5, 2008, 04:02 PM
This reminds me of when the Supreme Court Ruled that it was not right for Andrew Jackson to pass th Indian Removal Acts and continue to remove the Indians from their land. Jackson's response was, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them try to enforce it."

KBintheSLC
August 5, 2008, 07:30 PM
Dick Heller is a superstar!

How long til we have a new round, new weapon, something, that bears his name?

I think we need to make a currency run with his picture on it. He is a brave and patient man to fight these scum bags on legal turf. Frankly, I believe that loathsome fecal matter like the Mayor of DC ought to be dealt with like the French dealt with Louis XVI... but I guess that beating the crap out of them in court will have to do.

If DC effectively resists the decisions of the courts, I don't know what anybody can or would do.

Especially in todays day and age where most of us are scared to death of dyin' for our rights. If we had a single gram of gall left in this country, I could come up with a few suggestions to deal with the criminals in DC.

Vader
August 5, 2008, 07:57 PM
I am not being obtuse, I still consider the decission as I mentioned before a (....... .......) due to the "reasonable restrictions" (a metaphorical keystone?) insertion stated on the SC document.
I am sorry if I raised some welts with my comments. But dont consider it a fatalistic approach to the subject. Just my way of analyzing the situation.

22-rimfire
August 5, 2008, 08:29 PM
I wonder who is paying Heller's attorneys? I doubt Heller can afford it. Many of us might like to act, but few can afford the kind of legal team that is required for such long drawn out cases.

lacoochee
August 5, 2008, 09:44 PM
Quote:
Why is everyone intent on giving DC an out on this, it all sounds like "sea lawyering" at this point.
It's not "sea lawyering," it's examining the opposition's argument. By looking at it carefully, and holding it up against the ruling the is the cornerstone for future actions, we can figure out where it is strong, where it is weak, and how to attack it.

That's not "sea lawyering," that's "smart lawyering."

Oops, not clear on my part, I mean DC is "sea lawyering".

Novus Collectus
August 5, 2008, 10:28 PM
This reminds me of when the Supreme Court Ruled that it was not right for Andrew Jackson to pass th Indian Removal Acts and continue to remove the Indians from their land. Jackson's response was, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them try to enforce it."DC can and will be sued and they will lose money on court costs and attorney fees and DC doesn't have THAT much money. Eventually the taxpayers will have had enough when they wonder where their school budget went.
As I have read, Fenty as mayor can be sued. He has even less money.

Also, if the courts keep ruling their laws moot, then the result will be DC without some gun laws entirely because the courts will not uphold any charges or arrests for a moot law.
So the default of non-compliance is an even worse effect than what they are trying to fight.

Now, to top it all off, any permanent law DC passes I believe has to be approved by Congress. I doubt even a Democratic Congress would let them keep a law that the judicial branch has said over and over is unconstitutional.
Some Congresspersons really are that anti gun rights fanatical, but the majority will say DC is being silly and not approve their new law.

Mayor Fenty is tilting at windmills and it is only so long before he gives up, or the voters realize he is being quixotic at their expense.

johnsonrlp
August 6, 2008, 09:53 AM
It's probably a good idea to go along with the spirit of the ruling, at least until you get new judges.

jason10mm
August 6, 2008, 11:09 AM
IIRC, Hellers lawyer IS funding this out of his own pocket. That guy is the real hero. I'm blanking on his name, but THAT is the guy we need to protect from Vince Foster-like events.

Vibe
August 6, 2008, 11:18 AM
I don't think Gura is funding it. Heller the first was funded by one of the big heads at the CATO Institute. IIRC it was Robert Levy.

Henry Bowman
August 6, 2008, 12:30 PM
I don't think Gura is funding it. Heller the first was funded by one of the big heads at the CATO Institute. IIRC it was Robert Levy.Correct. Though Gura has given a significant amount of pro bono time as well.

antsi
August 6, 2008, 01:05 PM
Halbrook is going to make them pay dearly for this stupidity, and this is will be another major victory for us.

I wonder - what is to stop an endless round of obstructionist regulations by DC, and resulting lawsuits to challenge them, just going 'round and 'round forever?

DC says, "In order to register your pistol, you have to hop on one foot around city hall 1,456 times backwards on a full-moon Tuesday in November of a year that is an even multiple of 7."

Supremes say: "That's too restrictive. You're being a weenie, Fenty."

DC: "Okay, you only have to hop around city hall 1,455 times and you can do it on your left foot or your right foot. The full moon tuesday restriction still applies."

Supremes: "Still too restrictive."

DC: "Okay, forget about the hopping around thing. However, you do have to re-register your guns every 15 minutes. The office that does the registrations is open for half an hour, every other year."

Then in the meantime, Scalia has a heart attack and Obama appoints a resurrected Lenin to the SCOTUS, turning 5-4 into 4-5, and they say that renewing the registration every 15 minutes is a "reasonable restriction."

If I was the mayor of DC and a hard core anti, such a strategy would be very appealing to me. What ultimately is to stop this kind of thing from happening?

Tirod
August 6, 2008, 02:28 PM
Some scenarios are very speculative. I prefer to keep up with what's really happening - that's stressful enough!

1) Heller II will go to court, and a judge will make another decision. Pretty certain.

2) An appeal will be forthcoming from the loser - likely DC, who will try a novel legal argument that keeps it alive in court. We'll see.

3) The current polls mean nothing. We haven't even got past the conventions, overreaction to a VP candidate, and The October Surprise, much less filled a seat on the Supreme Court. Unless there is some egregious footdragging, Heller II should at least been heard in lower court. That judge has to deal with Heller I as a guideline anyway.

The mayor can pout all he wants to, but he only has so much budget and political capital to blow. Unless a party decides to make DC a national issue - a risky effort either way - he will run out of steam. The press will tire of the whole point during a campaign filled with "Change!" and start filling the press about the latest celebrity's messed up life.

As far as having a nongun candidate in office, it might help even more - how many states went CCW in the Clinton years? But sympathetic candidates have a track record of lulling us into complacency. Presidents on both sides seem to move to center.

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller II is a go, latest comments from BFA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!