2nd Amendment, Silveira and the Supreme Court (threads merged)

[Gray Peterson]

Kopel's sniveling here has gotten me riled up and fired up.

US v. Lewis was not a pure second amendment case. The Miller case in 1939. Is that all Kopel could come up with that the second amendment as an individual right, a footnote by a now dead SCOTUS judge in Harry Blackmun? What utter tripe and crap.

Though you have Blackmun making a footnote, you have many other SCOTUS justices in the past AND the present saying that it is.

And Kopel forgets one person who's on the Gorski Legal Team. His name is Roy Lucas. He was the man who wrote the brief which helped gain victory in favor of Roe in Roe v. Wade, as well as helped on the case of the Vietnam black armband case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

The man is a legend in federal appelate cases. To compare the incessant and idiotic ramblings of Quilici with Roy Lucas is a farce, a curse, nothing but more utter tripe.

David Kopel is a L-I-A-R.

 

[Don Galt]

Yeah, if all the gun owners in this country woke up and started actually voting pro-RKBA, the Libertarians would be in office in short order.

This "lesser of two evils" is the shell game that keeps the country headed downhill.

And its not just guns-- the republicans claim to be for small government, lower taxes, etc, and too many conservatives believe them and vote for candidates that give them large government and higher taxes.

Is keeping gays from getting married worth the higher taxes, bigger government, erosion of the constitution and gun rights, that you guys are getting?

 

[Graystar]

I don't live here, I just visit. Get a life!

How rude.

 

[gunsmith]

I live here &

I have a life

 

[ctdonath]

I've read all the conclusions from the case - and can't imagine a better case realistically making it to SCOTUS. While Kopel may have some valid points (fact is, you'll never have a perfect case), I just come to a different conclusion.

The majority ruling is an appalling work of Constitutional jurisprudence. There is a great deal of bashing the Emerson ruling with little more solid than vague quotes from Parade Magazine (a shallow Sunday newspaper insert) and reiterations of pro-racism/discrimination justifications of one of SCOTUS' biggest mistakes. By spending so much time on Emerson (and precious little else in the ruling is legally solid), SCOTUS is invited - if not required - to pit the 5th Circuit against the 9th in 2nd-Amendment reasoning...and methinks the 5th's ruling wins that argument hands-down.

Some dissentions were interesting, at worst neutral and at best helpful to our cause.

One dissention provides the crux of why this case must reach SCOTUS and be ruled in our favor: in excrutiating detail, the dissention demonstrates that existing cumulative case rulings, bias, and precident must lead to nullification of the 2nd Amendment, shows that this is blatantly absurd, and actually begs SCOTUS to relieve the courts of the accumulation of bad rulings.

With this case's ruling based on irrelevant newspapers and justifications of racism, and its dissents ranging to pleading for relief, SCOTUS must take this case. In turn, supporters of the 9th Circuit ruling will be hard-pressed to explain why a high-profile part of the Constitution should be ejected based on Parade Magazine and separate-but-equal rationalizing while a dissenting judge pleads for relief from being painted into a corner. At the same time, pro-2nd supporters will finally get a chance to present rational, legal support for RKBA.

Is the case perfect? no. You won't find one, and Kopel et al seem unwilling to make such a case (i.e.: "why can't a citizen own a new M16?"). It's the best we've had in decades.
Is the legal counsel perfect? no. Better counsel seem more interested in pontificating, while these lawyers got to SCOTUS.
Is the judge distribution perfect? no. Off only by 1, Bush has not had a chance to replace any, and POTUS Hillary would make things much worse; the current bench has expressed keen interest in solving the RKBA issue, if only a decent case would arise.
Is the timing perfect? no. Never will be. I'd rather see SCOTUS deal with it now than in a few decades; let's get this ruled on and over with.

Kopel and other detractors would do better to (a) get an "ideal" case to SCOTUS, and/or (b) make this case work and win. Dissention is just wasting energy at this point.

 

[Graystar]

I've read all the conclusions from the case - and can't imagine a better case realistically making it to SCOTUS. While Kopel may have some valid points (fact is, you'll never have a perfect case), I just come to a different conclusion.

What about a father protecting his child by shooting an intruder with a gun that was legally purchased in one state, but who's posession is illegal in the father's current state?

That is what happened to Dixon here in New York City. THAT would have been the perfect case to take to the appeals courts. It was a pure rights issue.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

There have been plenty of cases the Supreme court HAD to take, and they didn't take any of them. Their refusal to take 2nd amendment cases wasn't driven by legal reasoning, it was driven by ideology. If those motives still stand, they won't take this case, either.

Not one member has changed since they rejected the Bean and Emerson cases without any comment. So we know the ideological ballance probably hasn't shifted, unless somebody has had a really unlikely change of heart.

 

[LawDog]

Multiple threads merged.

LawDog

 

[alan]

Lonnie Wilson: Kopel a liar, not simply because you disagree with him.

Don Gault: You are essentially correct, gun owners are their own worst enemies, and the largest part of the rest of the people aren't all that bright either. Try this, for example. Next time you are sitting around with friends, relatives, neighbors, whatever, and these people are all bitching about one thing or another, when any of them pauses for breath, ask the following question, and consider the answer, or lack of answers that you obtain. Ladies and or gentlemen, when was the last time that any of you contacted any elected offical, persuant to whatever it is that causes your angst? In all to many cases, you will get a blank stare, or the verbal equivalent thereof. As I said earlier, for the most part, the rest of the people aren't all that bright either.

ct donath: The individual, in so far as federal law is concerned, can own a fully operational M-16, or other machine gun /selective fire weapon. One needs to go through Treasury/BATF baloney, pay the $200 transfer tax, plus the cost of weapon, of course. Then, depending on which state you reside in, and your relationship with the local chief of police, you are or might be home free. Of course, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is terrible legislation, but that is another thing entirely.

 

[jimpeel]

F4GIB

Thought for the day:

Grow thicker skin.

 

[Boats]

Yeah, if all the gun owners in this country woke up and started actually voting pro-RKBA, the Libertarians would be in office in short order.

If Libertarians were more grounded in reality, maybe they would be elected at least to dog catcher. Ain't enough gun owners in America to put that collection of self-selected LP crackpots into office and keep them there.

 

[Kharn]

Boats:

If Libertarians were more grounded in reality, maybe they would be elected at least to dog catcher.

Just wondering, would a Libertarian dog catcher do anything about strays? Or would they only show up after someone gets hurt? I think the Libertarians would be better off running for a more useful position.

Kharn

 

[MuzzleBlast]

The individual, in so far as federal law is concerned, can own a fully operational M-16, or other machine gun /selective fire weapon.

An individual cannot buy a NEW machine gun. It would have to have been made before 1986.