Heller And the Coming Split in Our Ranks

Instead of the boundaries being set by political debate, they will be set by court decision. This won't end the controversy, but it will change the battlefield in profound ways.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. For the longest time, this was considered a God-given right. And yes, there were boundaries, but they were determined by individual conscience. Debated yes, but the last word was the individual's.

The only way it can remain so is if the Supreme Court says "It's a God-given right." Anything else implies that the matter is now in the hands of a court. And as soon as the very first judgement is handed down by the SC, there will be an unending maelstrom of suits to follow.

Bottom line: we will have to go to a court in the future to make a determination on our own conscience. This is so screwed!

It means "hunter who argues that hunting is the only and exclusive valid reason to own a gun",

Click to expand...

Im pro-hunting... of dictators and oppressors.

A victory for gun owners by having SCOTUS rule in favor of Heller and against DC will be exactly that a victory. A battle will have been won but the war against those who hate the 2nd Amendment will continue. How big a victory ( or defeat if we lose) this case will be is still not known and may not be fully appreciated for months or even years. If Heller prevails it will probably lead to future legal challenges that will at least have the ability to quote this decision as support. Gun control was achieved over time in incremental steps. Reversing that juggernaut and regaining our freedom will be done the same way. Slowly and incrementally. We have succeeded in the CCW/Right to carry arena hugely in the last 20 years. We must maintain that focus in the future and bring it to bear on other areas of law do not hold up to 2A scrutiny.

Should we have to go to court and fight it out to exercise our inherent rights....? No we should not have to. But we do because that is the world we live in right now. To not accept that fact, evil and foul as it might be leads us away from the battle to keep and regain rights. We should not have to fight for this right but we do have to. In a perfect world this would be self evident but this world is anything but perfect.

There has always been a split, or fracture in the "gun culture" of this nation, as the "gun culture" is merely a portion of society at large and that can be looked at as being a wise thing. An internal checks and balances as it were.

Each side working to protect their own idealogic grounds, with the opposition (if one wants to call it that) rethinking their position continuously, another evolution in the definition of freedom. Politics (as usual) at work.

Heller will not be the end all/be all. We all know that. The decision will probably state 'There exists an Individual RKBA WITH local reasonable restrictions brought about by that local People's gov't (they know best what THEY need in that jurisdiction as they are elected by the people)' or words to that effect.

We do not all march in lock step in all things. Nor should we.

Let us await the decision, assess the win/loss column (because I feel that each side will be able to claim a victory as well as a loss if the Justices are wise) then see what rift develops. How far apart are polar opposites? Or, to see the glass half full, how much closer are they now?

As xrayboy states (and others as well) there will still be opposition, future battles to wage. The NRA, JFPO, GOA, VPC, BCPGV, Soros/Joyce, Adams v. Jeffersonian, States v. Fed (as well as others) all competing for followers ($$$/power). Politicians too.

At the bare minimum, hopefully, some people who live in the Nation's capitol will now be able to legally keep and bear arms within their households, w/ reasonable restrictions applying... of course. And still there will be those who put up (what they consider) common sensical reasonable roadblocks in their path.

I hope. I could be wrong. I never forget that this is a nation that once allowed genocide, ownership of humans, lack of suffrage for 50% of the population and the constitutional amendment outlawing sale of beer/spirits... all of which have since been rectified. I'm sure each caused a split in the ranks at the time. And still we trudge on.

I had friends out this week (from the far-west Chicago Suburbs) and mentioned that I had bought my five-year-old a Cricket .22 for her birthday last month. The wife of the couple, hastily asked my wife it if it had a lock and then added 'well, I guess out here they offer classes she can take...". I looked at her unable to mask my astonishment at having to make the correction and told her I would be teaching my daughter of course-adding my Father-in-Law would as well.

Don't ask me how it is I think this dovetails with this thread in my mind, but it does somehow.

(back on topic)

I hope. I could be wrong. I never forget that this is a nation that once allowed genocide, ownership of humans, lack of suffrage for 50% of the population and the constitutional amendment outlawing sale of beer/spirits... all of which have since been rectified. I'm sure each caused a split in the ranks at the time. And still we trudge on.

Baba Louie, I'm going to try to give you credit when I use that sometime.

OK. I'll admit to only rapidly scanning the posts to date. But ask yourselves this, as I think it highlights Cosmolines point.
Would the Zumbo affair have raised any eyebrows if it had occurred after a Heller win.

I used to be an absolutist but I realized it was a retarded strategy unless you really have most of the public behind the "absolutist" position and just want to provoke your enemies into saying something anti-gun.

I think that the real difference between the incrementalist and the absolutist approach is a matter of refinement and skill at politicking. You have to trot out a policy that is just pro-gun enough to get the antis opposed but not so pro-gun that it gets the attention of the general public and makes them care.

The goals of the incrementalists are (in my understanding):
-) to keep the social movement going full steam. The NRA's often criticized predilection for "fighting for the sake of fighting" is actually an important mechanism for keeping gun owners in a besieged and fighting state of mind, which is necessary until the movement is victorious. We have a long way to go.
-) to nibble away at the body of anti-gun politicians by forcing them to take anti-gun stands before elections. So long as the social movement continues to power ahead, votes are our number one weapon.
-) to implement legally unimportant changes that alter the cultural landscape and give people a legal and political stake in gun rights- ie CCW, promoting shooting sports, promoting self defense. The goal is that when gun owners are attacked, the whole public feels attacked.
-) to win binding legal victories when possible, but to recognize that legal victories (especially at the SCOTUS level) are often merely going to be stamps of approval on political victories that we have already de facto won.

Incrementalists and absolutists have the same goals, the absolutists just don't understand that there is a war beyond the next battle.

The Class 3 crowd got Pwned with 922o, virtually all gun owners say that FOPA was a great thing and the summary I got from them is "it's ok to lose some rights when we gain others" .

That is how it will go, get this for this and that for that.

Look, the NRA wasn't a political organization in 1968. Gun owners didn't have a political movement. Handguns were nearly banned in CA before the NRA woke up and realized what was happening. And we lost a HUGE defeat in 1968. The original 68 gun control act made ammunition subject to all the same restrictions as firearms and gave the ATF much greater authority to harass dealers.

This was killing FFLs and by extension, gun ownership. Survival was at stake here, not an argument of how much we could win. We had get FOPA passed, and fast.

Note that similar deals in 2005 involved much smaller concessions and the mental health concession we made was actually a victory because it added restoration of rights for veterans while conceding something that was already the law.

I think in the long run we will win back the ground we lost in 86.

Gunnerpalace:
Reagan asked the NRA what to do with the FOPA once the MG ban was added, they said sign it anyway and assured him the courts would declare the ban unconstitional within 6 months. Too bad their prediction did not come true. :banghead:

Kharn

Hence we can be our own worst enemies.