Heller and the 2nd ammendment


PDA






lilguy
September 13, 2009, 12:05 AM
I attended a 2nd ammendment symposium at the Chicago campus of NW University Law School. It was an all day affair discussing the Heller case and various aspects of 2nd amendment law. It was sponsored by the Federalists Society and the NRA ILA. It was VERY informative. One of the discussions
was on what "Arms" are protected by the 2nd amendment. I came away with the distinct impression that most scholars, on both sides of the issue do not think the 50 BMG would survive a court test on constitutional grounds.
As a member of the firearms fraternity for almost 40 years, there is no one more passionate about gun right than myself. I came away feeling that gun rights are settled law within the limits set by the SCOTUS. Most on the panels were 2nd Amendment advocates. One law professor was a counsel for the Brady campaign and several found fault with Scalia's ruling. All said they agree that the gun heritage in the USA is a fundamental part of our society supported by a majority of Americans but is subject to reasonable controls. The 50 BMG was singled out more than once as not falling within the the legal definition of a personal firearm protected by the constitution. Whether Congress goes after it was anyone's guess. That is a political decision I hope does not come to pass.

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller and the 2nd ammendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sig228
September 13, 2009, 01:21 AM
Interesting. What were the thoughts on the AR as a "protected" firearm?

Mini30
September 13, 2009, 01:26 AM
...scholars, on both sides of the issue do not think the 50 BMG would survive a court test on constitutional grounds

What did they mean; the cartridge, the machine gun, or semis & bolts made to fire the cartridge?

LaEscopeta
September 13, 2009, 09:36 AM
Whether Congress goes after it was anyone's guess. That is a political decision I hope does not come to pass.Good point to keep in mind. Just because the Courts finds a particular weapon is not covered by the 2cd amendment, does not mean Congress of any State HAS to ban it. The decision to ban something is still a political one, subject to public opinion, that we can influence.

Also, I believe the Heller decision states the “arms” covered by the 2cd are those in common use at the time for traditional lawful purposes. I can see possible arguments against a 50 cal BMG rifle not meeting this criteria.

Yo Mama
September 13, 2009, 09:40 AM
I hated the decision more and more over time.

Common used weapons? What happens in 50 years? I guess we can't have any new weapons that are innovative and better to defend our safety.

belus
September 13, 2009, 12:28 PM
The jurisprudence surrounding the 2A is just getting started. It's going to be an exciting couple decades. I'm sure we'll have our victories and disappointments.

Thanks for your post though, it was interesting and informative.

NMGonzo
September 13, 2009, 01:05 PM
When lightsabers will be outlawed ...

Evenflo76
September 13, 2009, 01:29 PM
The founders had the same "ARMS" as the Red Coats. Thank God!

Acera
September 13, 2009, 01:35 PM
When they outlaw the .50BMG, just look at the next biggest round it will be next.

First demonize it, tell lies about it, then legislate it's demise. They are trying to eventually get to your hunting guns..............

You have to draw a line in the sand, and not cross it. Compromise is the anti's friend, they get something, and we loose something. They don't ever loose anything.

Thanks for not standing up for the .50. All us .50 shooters that could not be there appreciate your support.

Leanwolf
September 13, 2009, 01:47 PM
ACERA - "When they outlaw the .50BMG, just look at the next biggest round it will be next.

First demonize it, tell lies about it, then legislate it's demise. They are trying to eventually get to your hunting guns..............

You have to draw a line in the sand, and not cross it. Compromise is the anti's friend, they get something, and we loose something. They don't ever loose anything. "


You're 100% correct. The Marxist Socialist Fascist inspired NeoLibs never, ever disengage.


L.W.

JellyJar
September 13, 2009, 02:24 PM
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

What is often overlooked in the debate over the RKBA is the fact that we all have basic human rights, including the RKBA, that predate the Constitution and are in no way dependent on the constitution for their existence. These rights are all derived from that Natural Law that gives to all of us our right to be alive.

The law that gives us our right to be alive is often called the Law of Nature. It is the purpose of man made law, also called positive law, to protect and preserve our right to be alive and all the other basic human rights derived from it. The Law of nature is of greater authority than any man made law including the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, any man made law, including any future amendment to the Constitution ( in case they ever try to amend the Constitution to do away with the RKBA ) that unreasonably infringes on the right of self preservation would have no legal or moral authority.

If we are willing to look at history, current events and the best empirical evidence with an open mind we can clearly deduce that the private possession of arms is necessary for self preservation in a political society. We may debate exactly what is and is not an arm but not the basic principle involved.

Furthermore don't over look the 9th amendment....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There can be no doubt based on the overwhelming historical evidence that at the time of our republic's creation that it was a given that all free men had the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection, their community and the nation. Now days all the basic rights that at first only applied to free white men now also apply to all men and women of whatever race including the RKBA.

So, therefore, the RKBA is one of the basic rights protected by the 9th amendment should the courts ever rule that the 2nd does not. Also, perhaps, should the courts argue that the 2nd amendment lets us own arms only for sport but not otherwise, or some other silly restriction, then we can appeal to both the Law of Nature and the 9th amendment for protection of the RKBA for self preservation and as a defense against political tyranny.

Whichever way you look at it the Federal Government does not have and can not have the right to unreasonably infringe on the RKBA. And given the due process clause of the 14th amendment that the same restrictions that apply to the Federal Government also apply to the various State Governments. Again the full extant of the RKBA may be debated but there can be no doubt about the basic principle that underlies it.

In my signature I talk about Law having the purpose to preserve and protect the innocent. I hope you now understand it.

Take care ya'll

cchris
September 13, 2009, 02:33 PM
They are trying to eventually get to your hunting guns.

They'll be considered "sniper rifles" at that point.

Lowlander91
September 13, 2009, 02:45 PM
They'll be considered "sniper rifles" at that point.
and shotguns will be "portable flak cannons"

If you enjoyed reading about "Heller and the 2nd ammendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!