Thank God for Heller


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
November 5, 2008, 03:10 PM
.

Well, with the election over and Obama President Elect, I guess we should all be really grateful that Heller came and went before Obama got into office.


Although Heller did not go 100% the way we wanted it to (what ever does), at least we mostly won in the court, and also very importantly we won in the public's eyes.

Many people will never know the nuances or actual facts of the case, but the general public will always know that......

"The 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms."


Not a militia's.


There will be many more battles over the 2nd Amdendment, but let us not forget this one is the foundation for which all others will be judged upon.

Thank you Heller and the 2nd Amendment attorneys.

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thank God for Heller" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PT92
November 5, 2008, 03:49 PM
Agreed. But what happens to Heller when Obama appoints several left-wing justices to the nation's highest court?

-Cheers

35Rem
November 5, 2008, 03:50 PM
Hopefully he'll only replace the ones that have been hanging on for a Liberal President before they retired.

Hawk
November 5, 2008, 03:57 PM
Agreed. But what happens to Heller when Obama appoints several left-wing justices to the nation's highest court?
Well, we know they're not going to reexamine Heller. Another 2A case would have to make it there and that requires a certain degree of cooperation from the 2A side - takes two to tango and all that.

And, on what we don't know but might surmise from the recent past: it can be a frustrating experience predicting the behavior of someone placed in a lifetime position. SC justices have surprised many of us over the years. Michael Crichton (RIP :() noted as much in "Why Speculate?". Don't bother trying to find it today. Looks like those of us offering condolences have crashed his server.

SSN Vet
November 5, 2008, 04:07 PM
Heller or not...

We're going to get an AWB and the libs will fight every inch of ground in court.

Mr. "I'm not going to take your guns" Obama didn't seem to have any problems with the unconstitutional gun ban in his home town, so don't expect him to respect the constitution any more not that he has more power.

JWarren
November 5, 2008, 05:55 PM
I truly believe that the "Common Usage" clause in Heller will give us quite a bit of protection.

Obama is bad, the left-wing congress is bad, but we DO still have the second amendment AND a recent SC affirmation and interpretation.

Couple that with common usage AND the fact that it was stated that Self-Defense was a legal usage, and we have FAR more power than we did in 1994.


But we will see....


-- John

brighamr
November 5, 2008, 06:04 PM
"really grateful that Heller came and went before Obama got into office. "

From what I remember, our current president didn't help us win Heller at ALL....

I understand what you're saying though....

astrolite
November 5, 2008, 06:10 PM
John Paul Stevens voted against Heller
Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against Heller
David Souter voted against Heller

Those are the judges who are even remotely likely to retire while Obama is president.

I might be worried if they were more conservative judges.

The way I see it - we might actually have the chance to have judges who are more aware of the need for 2nd amendment rights. The ones who would leave are certainly not.

RX-178
November 5, 2008, 06:13 PM
Another thing to think about now.

With the Heller ruling on the 2nd, we will NEVER lose it all.

And what we do lose, we can eventually get back, as long as we keep fighting.

gvnwst
November 5, 2008, 06:51 PM
And fight we shall.

GRIZ22
November 5, 2008, 07:47 PM
We're going to get an AWB and the libs will fight every inch of ground in court.


The argument against an AWB could be is it a "reasonable restriction" Heller mentioned?

CWL
November 5, 2008, 08:12 PM
Democratic lawmakers remember how they were voted-out in great numbers for supporting the original AWB.

Good thing is that politicians have good memories when it comes to protecting their own jobs.

I have faith in hypocrisy like that.

usmarine0352_2005
November 5, 2008, 08:23 PM
.

Well, they have a "Super Majority" now, so we'll see.

.

crushbup
November 5, 2008, 08:24 PM
The argument against an AWB could be is it a "reasonable restriction" Heller mentioned?

"Assault Weapons" are very much in common use. ARs and AKs are more popular than ever, and there are thousands upon thousands of mags for them. If that isn't common usage, nothing is.

They may pass the bill, but we'll be likely to overturn it with some hard work.

FourTeeFive
November 5, 2008, 08:25 PM
With the Heller ruling on the 2nd, we will NEVER lose it all.

On what do you base that assumption?

usmarine0352_2005
November 5, 2008, 08:32 PM
With the Heller ruling on the 2nd, we will NEVER lose it all.

Whenever I see absolutes like Ever and Never, I worry.



.

RX-178
November 5, 2008, 08:46 PM
The basis of that assumption is very simple.

It's based on how that there will always be people like us to keep fighting for these rights.

As long as we make sure that there will be more people to take over for us in the future (*hint* Take more people shooting *hint*), there will always be a fight for the 2nd Amendment.

You can look at the old days of gun rights and say that those days didn't last forever. But on that same logic, these days of a hoplophobic public will not last forever either.

I'm personally going to fight for all I'm worth to end that phase of history sooner, rather than later. And I'll fight it again if it swings back around again.

Walkalong
November 5, 2008, 08:55 PM
Those are the judges who are even remotely likely to retire while Obama is president.

I might be worried if they were more conservative judges.
Yep, No need to panic yet. This is one battle that we lost, but there are others coming along we need to be prepared for and win.

JWarren
November 5, 2008, 09:21 PM
Well, they have a "Super Majority" now, so we'll see.


Did I miss something? When I left for work this morning, the democrats were 6 shy of having the magic "60" needed for a filabuster-proof "supermajority" in the Senate.


What did I miss?



-- John

usmarine0352_2005
November 5, 2008, 09:50 PM
Did I miss something? When I left for work this morning, the democrats were 6 shy of having the magic "60" needed for a filabuster-proof "supermajority" in the Senate.


What did I miss?



-- John


Whoops, meant majority.

.

Gun Slinger
November 5, 2008, 09:50 PM
Nothing. Just a little Internet hysteria/misinformation at work. :neener:

The Dems do not have a super majority in the Senate.

The Rs can still filibuster if need be.

:)

#shooter
November 5, 2008, 11:32 PM
With the Heller ruling on the 2nd, we will NEVER lose it all.
Never say never. The 2nd can always be repealed I suppose. It seems constitutional amendments are popping up all over in many states (ie gay marriage and abortion etc). Of course if we get to that point RKBA would be deep in it. Heller did 3 things that were very important IMHO.
The good
1. The 2nd is an individual right not a right of the state.
2. This right covers common arms including pistols. Basically your bolt and semi non-military looking rifle, shotgun, and specifically handguns will be protected.
3. The right also covers self defense. Not just target shooting, hunting, or collecting, but self defense in particular. This is huge.
The bad
Gun banners favorite gotchas like licensing, registration, lowering magazine capacity, micro stamping, limiting cartridge power, a firearm’s size and shape (length, width, and caliber) were left open to interpretation. This would include EBRs, SNS, 50cal, or any new exotic innovations. There will be challeneges to define what is "common."
The ugly
Ammo restrictions are on the horizon and Heller said nothing specific about ammo.
The most vulnerable is removing the use of lead because it would be easy to pass. There is conflicting reports about lead contamination in venison, CA has banned all hunting with lead ammo, and some ranges are being threatened to close over lead contamination. The CDC is due to report it's findings, if it is negative that may be all that is needed for starting restrictions with hunting ammo.
Other ammo restrictions would be increased taxes, serialization, licensing, and registration of ammo.

The bottom line is while heller was a great victory, it was by no means all inclusive. We shall see if Obama makes a move, it would not surprise me if some limitation it gets worked into a popular bill in the middle of the night.

everallm
November 6, 2008, 09:29 AM
Actually folks Heller AS IS is useful but not YET the solid wall we need.

2A has to be incorporated for it to have real teeth.

Fortunately with both the Chicago suit as well as the California (Nordyke) case we have a reasonably good window to get this done.

If/As/When 2A gets incorporated THEN we will have a very substantial club.

FourTeeFive
November 7, 2008, 01:59 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/pl_afp/usvotejustice

US Supreme Court to test Obama's talents
by Lucile Malandain Lucile Malandain Thu Nov 6, 10:18 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) President-elect Barack Obama may have the rare chance to appoint two judges to the Supreme Court, giving the former law professor an opportunity to make a further lasting mark on American society.

Already observers are weighing in on what Obama could do in the key decision on replacements for the highest court in the land.

"It is quite likely he would choose a woman or a minority," said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia University in New York.

"If he could find a Hispanic woman, that would be ideal, the best choice," he added.

Only two women have served on the Supreme Court, and two African-Americans have succeeded one another in the same seat, but never has an judge with a Latino background been appointed.

Hispanics are an ever-growing demographic in the United States, making up 15 percent of the population.

But beyond the race or sex of the candidate, observers are gearing up for appointments of politically progressive judges to the bench to replace the older liberals sitting on it today.

John Paul Stevens, appointed by president Gerald Ford, is 88 years old, and is expected to resign soon.

The nine justices are appointed for life.

Widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court, Stevens' replacement with another liberal would maintain the bench's fragile balance.

Currently four conservatives, four liberals, with the moderate Anthony Kennedy holding the middle ground, compose a balance Obama is expected to sustain.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, appointed by president Bill Clinton, is another liberal lifer also expected to resign within Obama's first term in office.

During Obama's campaign the Democrat hinted at what he expected of his appointees, and certainly could surprise conservative commentators expecting him to name someone more radical to the post.

"His pick might be radical, not in the ideology but in the background," noted Persily.

Obama could pick someone who has not made a career in the judicial system, for example a politician or law professor, he added.

The president-elect has said he would take his own experience into account in making the decision.

"I taught constitutional law for 10 years and when you look what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule but it's their conception of the court," said Obama in a interview during his campaign.

Traditionally the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, have split firmly on their judgment of what the Supreme Court can and can't do for the evolution of American society.

Republicans have forcibly lobbied for judges who strictly adhere to the constitution, and criticized Democrat appointees who attempt to advance societal norms in a way they call "legislating from the bench."

A slew of controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion rights, gun ownership, the death penalty, privacy and the Internet are all likely to resurface in coming years.

Many in the weakened Republican party fear the more liberal judges could make sweeping changes in law that could serve as precedent throughout the nation.

But in the hubbub surrounding Obama's projected appointments, his friend Cass Sunstein, a preeminent American legal scholar at Harvard University, Massachusetts -- where Obama himself studied -- noted a fact often overlooked.

"The first thing to know about Obama, which hasn't gotten sufficient attention, is that he is himself appointable to the Supreme Court," Sunstein said.

"He is a constitutional specialist who has taught for many years. There's a guarantee that we'd get someone of the first intellectual rank."

"Not Harriet Miers," he added, referring to the ultra-conservative lawyer nominated by President George W. Bush, and who was withdrawn when criticized across the political spectrum for never having served as a judge and being ill-prepared and uninformed.

TT
November 7, 2008, 06:25 PM
Of course there is no chance that one of the conservative members of the Court will die or have to retire unexpectedly. :rolleyes: Once that happens, Obama and the Dem Congress install a gun-hater, DC reinstates their gun ban with some trivial changes, pro-gunners try to take it to court again, the Court refuses to hear it, Heller is rendered useless. Hatred of gun owners is an exceptionally powerful driver- stare decisis will not stand against it.

Art Eatman
November 7, 2008, 06:48 PM
Politics, philosophy, venting. Not legal. Take it to APS. :)

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