Evil NRA?!

[Igloodude]

Cosine and MasterBlaster, thanks for the correction. In looking at the article, I see "Copyright © 1982 Oklahoma City University Law Review" which explains the error for Delaware (constitution amended in 1989) and Wisconsin (constitution amended in 1998).

In general www.guncite.com has been very accurate, thus my using it here without reviewing the data myself.

Anyway, perhaps a more accurate (or at least more up-to-date) list here:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841#With

But my question remains - what happens when a federal law bans a substance or activity that a state constitution protects?

 

[Al Norris]

The Parker case wasn't brought to the DC circuit by a gun rights advocate, or even someone with a vague interest. It was brought by a person with strong libertarian leanings who could afford to fund the challenge.

That's not exactly the way Mr. Levy put it. He has a strong leaning to Constitutional Originalism. Despite any libertarian leanings, he wanted to see the Constitution upheld. In that, he had a "vested" interest.

The NRA, on the other hand, has a vested interest in staying out of the Supreme Court. All other considerations aside, they are afraid that their "power-base" would evaporate, should we get a decision that supports the 2A.

Look at who we most likely have on our side:

Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia

Who is firmly on the other side?

Breyer
Souter
Stevens

That leaves Ginsberg and Kennedy. Ginsberg has made statements that tend to support the individual right. Kennedy appears to go whichever way the wind blows. If Ginsberg can be led to take the Pro-Gun side, Kennedy, I believe will follow.

That would give us a 6-3 decision for the individual right.

At worst, we might have a 5-4 decision.

And before anyone jumps on me about this "prediction," consider the way in which the Circuit opinion was written. If anything, the opinion was written to directly address the Supreme Court. It's almost an amicus brief for granting cert.

Regardless, I have no fear of taking this to the Supreme Court. It is way past time for the Feds to show their cards. We absolutely need to know where the Constitution stands... The Parker decision leaves very little if any wiggle room.

 

[xd9fan]

Regardless, I have no fear of taking this to the Supreme Court. It is way past time for the Feds to show their cards. We absolutely need to know where the Constitution stands... The Parker decision leaves very little if any wiggle room.

I want everybody to show there cards.....no more hiding.......take a side. I like the Parker case because it leaves little if any wiggle room.........we either have a "Right" or we dont.......and if not..........then we will see how serious americans are about words like.....liberty.

 

[IllHunter]

Oh don't scare me!!

if it did go up that far and they did rule against us we (as in gun owners) would be in a world of hurt.

I live in Cook County Illinois, 4 miles from Chicago, what are you gonna do, take away my guns?

I say (as a Life Member and EVC) if the NRA wants to avoid the SCUSA it's undefensible. Bring on the fight, the time for posturing is past and it's fish or cut bait!

 

[shield20]

Igloo,

But my question remains - what happens when a federal law bans a substance or activity that a state constitution protects?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The First Congress, through the Judiciary Act of 1789, acknowledged the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the states and, by implication, acknowledged the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution 1997 Gene Garman

Good luck though, most local authorities will arrest you for THEIR laws, and let YOU sort it out in court.

(my pet peeve being the Gun Free School crap - where the US code says I can carry, yet NYS says I can't)

 

[another okie]

For all the skimmers out there, this is not what I believe, but what I think the court would be likely to rule, so don't attack me over it.

A decision by the current court would probably be something like this:

1. There is an individual right to keep and bear arms, the original purpose of which was to make sure individuals were armed for militia service.

2. It is a prohibition on federal action only, not state laws.

3. It protects a right, but the right is not absolute. There is a difference between finding the scope of a right and allowing infringement on the scope of the right.

4. Individuals may own small arms suitable for militia service, but not "crew served" or heavy weapons.

5. The federal government may limit or regulate the time, manner, or place in which this right is expressed, such as prohibiting armed marches, open carry, or the type of behavior which disqualifies a person from this right.

6. States may limit the right however they wish.

For all the skimmers out there, this is not what I believe, but what I think the court would be likely to rule, so don't attack me over it.

 

[xd45gaper]

This editorial was written in 2003 when Ashcroft was still AG. The situation on the court has changed has it not? Has the NRA changed its positions as a result??

i saw that after i posted. sorry lol i thougth it was a recent article but i still like to hear every ones opinion on it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Look at who we most likely have on our side:

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia

Who is firmly on the other side?

Breyer, Souter, Stevens

That leaves Ginsberg and Kennedy.

I was just reading the 1992 Thompson Contender opinion where the Supreme Court ruled on SBRs. In that opinion, Souter wrote the majority opinion that said that the statute was too vague and that a pistol in combination with a rifle kit was not necessarily constructive possession of a short-barrelled rifle.

Kennedy was on the dissent in that one and supported treating the two as constructive possession of an SBR (along with Stevens).

The Second Amendment wasn't mentioned at all in that case, so it may be silly to try and guess their position based on the ruling there; but it suggests that maybe Souter and Kennedy aren't where we think they are.

 

[illspirit]

Count me in with the others who said we should do this now.

As stated in the article, if we keep waiting, we may end up with a Miller: Part 2 where a criminal is the poster boy. Should Parker be scuttled, who's to say some criminal coddling antis won't try to push some crack dealer through to SCOTUS on 2A grounds just to poison the proverbial well?

Besides, how long should we wait anyway? This article is four years old, but what happens if we wait another four years, Hillary or Obama get elected, and, say, Schumer and Feinstein are appointed as Justices?

Or, if we wait another ten or twenty, just think of all those new voters coming out of the public school system being indoctrinated with the "collective right" fraud. As it stands, only like 3/4 of the population still knows that it is an individual right. If that number continues to slide, it will be easier for antis to get elected, and easier for elected antis to appoint anti Justices.

If worst comes to worst, and Parker does somehow lose, would it not be better that it happen now when most States are pro-gun, rather than wait for the socialist hive-mind to assimilate more and more of them? If it came down to it, there's surely enough States to amend the Constitution (either to reaffirm/clarify 2A is an individual right, or perhaps give MA and NY back to England ), or remedy the travesty by some other means...

 

[antsi]

------quote-----------
When I was a younger man I won money playing poker from time to time. It was always good to have impatient people in the game. They bet far too much on hands that could go either way. It's not that I was the world's best poker player, or even very good, but I was much better at sitting out hands in which the odds were not enough in my favor.
-----------------------

This man (above) speaks wisdom.

This man (below) speaks folly.

--------quote---------
If you don't want to fight for it, stay out of the way of those who will.
-----------------------

Every member of this board is interested in advancing gun owner rights. We all want to fight for it, but there are important differences of opinion on how to conduct that fight.

When Ambrose Burnside sent his troops charging Marie's Heights, he certainly demonstrated that he wanted to fight. Unfortunately, he chose an extremely stupid time, place, and manner to do his fighting and the result was a pointless slaughter of his own troops.

Those who are expressing the opinion that we are unlikely to get a favorable SCOTUS decision and think this case may do more harm than good aren't cowards, they aren't closet gun-grabbers, and they aren't wimps. They aren't saying "let's don't fight." They're saying "this is not a smart time, place, or manner for us to choose our fight."

If you disagree, and you think this is a good time, place, and manner for us to choose to fight, then please, by all means, make that point and support it with facts.

But please, don't go all bluster and bravado, and accuse those who disagree with you of being unwilling to fight for our rights.

Personally, I don't know enough about SCOTUS machinations to know what our chances are.

I do know that the trend lately has been for the Court to make very narrow decisions on very narrow grounds. The people who are talking about getting a sweeping Court victory on Monday and going out to buy a machine gun on Tuesday haven't been paying much attention to the Supreme Court lately.

 

[FieroCDSP]

When the DC court decision came down, I was initially cheerful, but almost immediately upon thinking about it, I realized what SCOTUS could do to the entire 2A if they came down on the collective side. It literally gave me a chill. I haven't been fighting this fight as long as many of you, but I too am tired of waiting for the next big AWB or re-defined BATFE statute to be handed down.
There is the possibility that SCOTUS will not hear the case. If that happens, the DC ruling stands, and the liberal law-makers will set about to define what time a gun-shop in DC opens and closes, what it sells, and to whom, etc. The DC ruling doesn't directly affect the rest of the country, except in principle. The "Individual rights" idea can be used in other places with bans, but in separate cases, and when eventually put on SCOTUS plate, they will refer back to their reason not to see the DC ruling, and that's that.

If they do choose to see this case, it will be the responsibility of the judges to determine whether a long-held belief that WE have any right what-so-ever to defend ourselves against someone wishing to do us harm, is still valid. These are Supreme Court Justices. Unlike the other two branches, these people are required to have a conscience, because there isn't precedent for everything, and at some point you have to decide on right or wrong. Despite political connection, I doubt most of them would come down on the side that no-one in this country has the right to defend themselves. Maybe I'm ignorant or naive and they don't work that way. If they decide against this, I'm guessing we're going to see a huge shift in the way citizens think, real quick, as crime becomes as rampant as in England, Australia, and other places that have collective bans. And our citizens will not stand for this, nor will they stand for the removal of rights that will follow. How long they put up with it is anyone's guess, but it won't be long.

Just my thoughts.

 

[TexasRifleman]

There is the possibility that SCOTUS will not hear the case

It is my personal belief that we'll see exactly that.

It will be interesting to see what grounds for appeal are used to try to get it there.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Trip20:

It was your post that spoke of scaring people in its literal sense with crazy wild-eyed antics... whereas it's obvious Brett was talking about how showing up in great numbers in support of a cause has an impact.

I read no statements in Brett’s post about shooting guns in the air or threatening non-believers with murder. You attributed your ridiculous statements to Brett as if they were his own beliefs.

I'm sure smart-alecky straw man arguments are fun to write... but doing so dismisses any valid point you could possibly have.

My response was addressed to what Brett said in justification of his proposed march on the Supreme Court. Among its purposes, according to Brett, would be "To convince those theoretically on our side that it's an issue they shouldn't take a dive on for convenience, and to put a real scare into the ones not on our side." I have just highlighted that part of Brett's statement to show that I was talking about it. You evidently did not understand. I realize why you did not understand. You have my real compassion.

You make a distinction between "real" and "literal." Your belief is that Brett didn't mean "scaring people in its literal sense" when he said "real scare." Your use of the English language is liberating, because it removes any possible offense from my assessment of you as a "real moron." Don't take it literally. Understand it as a compliment.

It was indeed I who interpreted Brett's intention "to put a real scare into the ones not on our side" literally, based on my understanding that he meant "real scare" instead of "fake scare" or whatever you think he meant by qualifying the word "scare" with the word "real."

I was careful to cast my interpretations as questions, which allows Brett the opportunity to respond with answers. That's why I put the symbols that look like the tops of clothing hangers--?--at the end of some groups of words. They are called "question marks" or "interrogation marks" and they are used to mark the ends of questions. Those groups of words are, therefore, called "questions." It is common in this language for people to ask questions to clarify points and to make points, although I don't mean that every little pointy thing is improved by putting a clothing hanger on it, so don't be alarmed.

[Edited by moderator for manners]

 

[royh]

I don't understand the apprehension. The worst that can happen is that we have an explicit dismissal of the 2A rather than an implicit dismissal. Color me unimpressed.

[EDIT]

Oh, and as far as giving the gun control-side more ammunition: whatever, they can always just make stuff up anyway.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Robert Hairless, in other threads I would just read your comments, yawn, and go on to the next.

Your attacks--however thinly veiled--on veteran RKBA advocates cannot go unchallenged.

Give us your credentials, provide us with the names and usernames of veteran TRH members, as well as their testiments to your commitment to the cause.

You have attacked a dedicated RKBA volunteer, and attacked with the most ridiculous of criticisms.

Bartholomew Roberts' posts here are held in high regard because he thinks before he speaks.

You could learn much from his posts, especially the concept of not attacking an ally.

 

[geekWithA.45]

CIVILITY, PEOPLE.

Don't make me find my civility stick.

 

[Art Eatman]

Some personal thoughts are better expressed in PMs or emails. It is not the purpose of any thread to make this website look like a home for the bewildered. Or the rude, crude and hostile.

Read. Think. Think and type and think. Then edit with thought. After that, Submit Reply. There are no prizes for rapidity of response. There is no Oneupsmanship Award.

Art

 

[xd45gaper]

Don't make me find my civility stick.

LOL!

 

[jpr9954]

I find it interesting to read the history of the Parker case from their lead attorney, Alan Gura. See this link:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_vs_dc.htm

And here is another on Bob Levy who started and funded the entire Parker case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

Gura does speak to the NRA's role and position in the Parker case and I'll leave it at that.

John

 

[TexasRifleman]

I find it interesting to read the history of the Parker case from their lead attorney, Alan Gura.

So can someone explain to me the process that happened where the Texas Solicitor General winds up arguing this case before the Appeals Court?

The article seems to indicate Bob Levy carried this on his own, but apparantly it was much bigger than that if you have 5 states Attornies General involved.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So can someone explain to me the process that happened where the Texas Solicitor General winds up arguing this case before the Appeals Court?

The article seems to indicate Bob Levy carried this on his own, but apparantly it was much bigger than that if you have 5 states Attornies General involved

The state of Texas filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the appeals court arguing that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. Texas AG Greg Abbot and the Texas Solictor General (name escapes me at the moment) led the way on this and the AGs of 13 other states joined them on the brief.

At the appeals level, interested parties can file briefs arguing why the court should rule one way or the other. For example, the Brady's, VPC, city of San Francisco, state of MA, and several other groups filed briefs for the opposing side. I don't believe they usually argue in front of the court; but the court does read their brief, which is usually written in a persuasive fashion.

However, when you are arguing whether a right protects a collective right of the states to maintain a militia or a private individual right to own a firearm, it doesn't hurt to have 14 states saying "No, that is an individual right."

This is one thing I really like about this case. There are literally dozens of instances where we might have had a different outcome if just one person had done the easy thing instead of the right thing. One of the reasons we have this result is because so many people did the right thing.

 

[TexasRifleman]

One of the reasons we have this result is because so many people did the right thing.

Thanks for the info on how that happened.

His name is Ted Cruz, Solicitor General of the State of Texas.

I sent him an email last week thanking him for his work on this.

 

[mack]

Lets see, seventy years since the Supreme Court last ruled on a 2nd amendment case - yep we need to be more patient - twenty plus years of scholarship building and documenting the case that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. All that time working also to convince 70% plus of the population that it is an individual right. Decades working hard to get a conservatives elected to get conservatives on the court. But no, it is too risky, it is too scary.

I'm glad that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and all those dead white guys were not so timid. I can't imagine what some here would have said about the Declaration of Independence. We'd undoubtedly still be part of the British Empire.

It is not only time, it is long past time that this was heard by the court - as was well said - that there is even any question that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, as recognized by the federal government, is testimony to the fact that it is past time.

If not now when? Do we gamble on the next election and subsequent appointments - look at the leading contenders for both parties - who do you think they are going to appoint? So do we then wait until the next 2 or 3 or 4 or more presidential election cycles? When? Do we just try to avoid it forever because we are afraid we might lose in court? I mean we can never be one hundred percent sure now can we? We can always have a little doubt and therefore have a fear we will lose.

No, those too afraid today will be too afraid tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. If you have the truth on your side, then you must trust in it. This isn't a poker game and we aren't talking about something as trivial as cash, but even in a poker game - if you want to win then you had best bet on a good hand when you get one - either that or quit fooling yourself and get out of the game. Besides, there is no waiting for the "right' time to do what is right, to assert one's rights. I suppose we could have told the slave - yes I know that you have rights slave, but you see this just isn't the right time - maybe when your kids or grandkids, or great grandkids are born or old then the time will be right.

I will be contacting the NRA to inform them, that at least for this life member, that I will cancel my membership and encourage as many of my fellow members as possible to do the same should they not actively, vocally, and energetically oppose legislation to repeal the laws in question in Parker. I will also encourage all NRA members to quit all monetary support of the NRA programs unless they get behind the lawsuit and stop this backdoor attempt at sabotage. I will also contact firearm manufacturers and related companies and call on them to disavow affiliation with the NRA until or unless the NRA helps to derail this legislation.

I hope individuals here will join me and spread the word to other boards and groups and start calling and getting the word out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I hope individuals here will join me and spread the word to other boards and groups and start calling and getting the word out.

Well I think some more reading might be in order.

Everything I can find seems to point to a SCOTUS ruling that would not have the sweeping impact some think it will.

The question of Parker is pretty narrow. If they let stand the appeals ruling without hearing the case (which is my bet) then what?

If they DO hear it and rule that yes indeed you can have a firearm in your house in DC, thanks for playing. Then what?

 

[AJ Dual]

I see both sides of the debate on this and I'm torn.

I understand the reasoning behind the notion that the 2A is to precious to take any chances with it until we get a SCOTUS bench that's all but guaranteed to decide our way on the individual right interpretation.

OTOH, I understand that waiting for the "perfect court" could well leave us waiting forever, while the natural (some might say, inevitable) trend towards collectivization and group-think water down the American spirit further and further. And people who stand on "antiquated" notions like originalist intent, much less the Constitution itself, get more and more marginalized.

(How many people do you know who's eyes glaze over when you talk about anything other than the liberal cause du-jour in constitutional terms, and look at you like they're surprised you don't live in a "compound"?)

I sincerely doubt that we're going to get a better court within the next eight years, and if appointments should go against us in those next eight years, it could easily be 30 years or more before constructionists see the court, if ever again. The liberal name of the game is to fight all conservative appointees tooth-and-nail, I don't see that changing any time soon, so even if the '08 POTUS elections go our way, I don't know that it will make any difference. And on top of that, the GOP front-runners show some serious potential for the next Republican POTUS to be a serious RINO anyway.

Personally, if I had to guess, the court would rule in favor of the "individual right" intellectual honesty demands no less, but they'll also rule that "reasonable restrictions" are permitted (1st Amendment, can't yell fire in a theater, etc...) which will leave both sides claiming "victory", since, Brady/VPC always issue pro-forma denials that they want all guns banned, just "reasonable restrictions", and the NRA/RKBA side can also claim victory that the individual right interpretation has been upheld.