Heller II Case Update

The assault weapons ban is one that we want to keep out of the Supreme Court. Nothing good will come it.

One step at a time

The fact is, it WILL be addressed at some point. Might as well do it now.

Actually, the AWB would be a good one for the Supreme Court...if you were to use Gura's arguments on the seconday reason (all citizens able to help protect the state) for the 2A.

Consider WA constitution Article 1 section 24...the right of the individual to bear arms in defence of himself, and the state shall not be infringed..."

Remember the SAF is based here in WA...You cannot effectively defend the state if you do not have access to military style weapons.

Also please don't forget about those of us in states that still have AWBs. While I understand many of you don't stand to gain anything from it, it is very important to the rest of us.

This goes back to US v Miller 1939: if any arms are protected specifically by the Second Amendment it would be the arms that a citizen would show up with if called to arms for national defense.

The NRA of Great Britain was established in 1858, and the NRA of America followed suit in 1871, to promote civilian marksmanship amongst those eligible either to volunteer or be conscripted for miltary service in time of national emergency. The US government Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice preceded the current Civilian Marksmanship Program by a century.

I have felt that anyone approaching military age should not only be familiar with their own nation's service weapon, but also those of their potential allies and those of their potential enemies. The Second Amendment is about the citizen's duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

In all cases the arms are the very military style arms affected by the AWBs federal or state.

I'll cut and paste a previous item I found interesting:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCu11GeneralsAHSA.pdf
District of Columbia v. Heller amicus curiae of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., etc al.

The amicus curiae brief of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al., in the case of DC v Heller, argued that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms supports and enhances the collective goal of supporting national defense, and that the dichotomy between individual right and militia right interpretations is false:

The Petitioners and Respondent are asking this Court to select among two mutually exclusive interpretations of the Second Amendment: one establishing an individual’s right to bear arms and, the other memorializing society’s right to organize a force for its collective defense. Amici suggest that this dichotomy, pitting individual rights against group rights, is not ordained by the language of the Second Amendment, which is a cogent blend of both individual rights and community rights, with each depending on the other. A well-regulated militia – whether ad hoc or as part of our organized military – depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms – rifles, pistols and shotguns. Amici suggest that the Second Amendment ensures both the individual’s right to possess firearms, subject to reasonable regulation, and the constitutional goal of collective defense readiness. Based on decades of military experience, amici have concluded that the District of Columbia’s Gun Law (“D.C. Gun Law”), D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 et seq., directly interferes with various Acts of Congress aimed at enhancing the national defense by promoting martial training amongst the citizenry.

Click to expand...

With a closely split court and a liberal Prez, sending Heller II there with the risk of a retiring judge and a liberal replacement, that makes me very nervous

leadcounsel said:

With a closely split court and a liberal Prez, sending Heller II there with the risk of a retiring judge and a liberal replacement, that makes me very nervous

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Scalia supports a ban on assault rifles.

Unfortunately, Heller did nothing to eliminate the trigger lock laws in my county.... these laws are still on the books and being enforced...

rajb123 said:

Scalia supports a ban on assault rifles.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? I took something quite different from his recent interview.

That's what a lot of folks said in 2003 about Heller I.

Click to expand...

5-4 is as close a win as you can get.

Heller is not the pro-gun victory gunowner make it out to be. Heller in its ruling that its decision does not rule out banning entire classes of firearms

Now that Chief Justice Roberts has steered the court to the left with Obamacare how can we be certain of the courts ruling on this issue?

No, you can't.

Based on the ages of the justices, I would expect two of the Heller 5 to retire or die in the next term.
If Obama is re-elected I would expect his picks to be solidly anti-gun.
If Romney is elected I would not count on his picks being pro firearms ownership and they may be anti.
Those picks are appointed for life.
So there is a good chance that the balance will swing in the antis favor soon.

The current court is probably the best you are likely to see for the next 20 years for pushing second amendment cases through.