After 'Heller' Reason Can Prevail.The End of the NRA as We Know It?

After Heller, we need the NRA even more.




Heller is merely the beginning of the battle. There will be many, many lawsuits and court cases now. Many having far reaching implications. There is Incorporation, Fully Auto and other factors to look at.

 

The reason they want Tihart is gone is so they can sue the stores where guns used in crimes were sold. It's a sop to the trial lawyers; it's not that important to the rabid anti-gunners.

The reason the NRA was not enthusiastic about Heller is that they can count to five, and when that case was filed we did not have five votes on the Supreme Court. The case would have gone the other way if one anti justice had not retired after the case was filed. In other words, we would be sitting here today screaming about the fact that the Supreme Court had just ruled there was no individual right to bear arms.

 

With the next President probably choosing a few SCOTUS judges and gun cases in the future being decided by them, it's a big deal who's put in the White House.

 

Don't let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security by the claims being made that "for the first time in history, America's guns are officially safe."

 

handguns are safe. Hunting weapons will always be safe to some extent. But, not paying ridiculous fees for licensing, taxes and stamps, disassembly laws, magizines, the freedom of privacy, and EBRs are not safe, and probably won't ever be.

 

False sense of security. That's definitely a danger. As others have said, Heller was a battle, not the war. And activism along with vigilance is more important than ever.

 

Heller just started the fight and I hate to sound rude but some people will only support Heller to the extent that their firearms are protected but then again thats nothing new sadly.

 

"Will it actually matter if you are permitted to own a gun when a box of 22's cost $1000.00 and you have to have a firearm license and your ammunition is registered and all unregistered ammo and reloading equipment and supplies will be a felony to possess? Math never was my strong subject, but tabulate how much a $25 box of 270 shells cost after a 500% tax + local sales tax."

I understand your position, and if the outrageous prices of bullets and supples you mentioned comes to pass it will because of economic forces, not legal ones. In the early 1900s there was a Federal law that was a tax that raised the prices of guns to upwards of $100.00 per unit, the reason being that only the wealthy were learned enough to own guns, so only the wealthy would be able to afford them. (it was an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and immigrants) It was struck down as unconstitutional.

They thought of "bullet control" is dying on the vine, and anyone stupid enough to keep suggesting it is getting shunned on the Hill as a crackpot.

 

Heller is a start, a good start, but a start nonetheless.

The writer of the article in the OP is clearly an anti-gunner IMHO.

 

Even if magically all gun restrictions were removed, NRA has an education program on firearms training.

This article is the wish list of a anti-gun rights mouthpiece. The post Heller court battles are only beginning, and now gun owners know the courts, and not the legestlature, the probably the best hop to champion gun rights.

Particularly since presidents, senators and representatives have shown themselves to be fair weather friends who only want our votes, not to even try and work for our causes.

 

Only anti-gunners use this phrase: "If you don't support these restricitons, you have no common sense." ANY new gun restriction, however "noble" its supposed anti-crime or anti-accident "purpose" might be, is likely to have a MORE important effect on the safe, legal gun owner than on anyone else.

Because of this complex problem of "unintended" consequences, there is NO "common sense" restriction (all of it requires detailed scrutiny) , and people who use the "common sense" phrase are either insulting you, too stupid to grasp complex concepts--or too dishonest to admit what their agenda really is.

No more gun shows, no private sales at all, no more gifting, no more inheritence of guns--common sense, right?

Jail time for you if a gun is stolen and you don't find out or don't report it for a while. Same thing if your mom has a gun stored in the basement, and one day some workmen help themselves to it--and she doesn't notice. Prosecuting the thieves--difficult; prosecuting Mom--easy! Common sense!

Makes it easier, if we decide that certain types of hanguns are illegal (after we "clarify" Heller with new "reasonable restrictions"), to remove them from your home, thereby protecting you. Common sense.

Makes sure they take several months--or years--to complete (THIS won't be an instant check) and reject anyone who's ever been CHARGED with a misdemeanor. Common sense.

So that we can sue gun stores out of existence (and gun manufacturer's, too, once we repeal that Legal Commerce Act). Common sense.

So, if 5 grams of crack cocaine is 5 years, and a Sig 220 weighs 885 grams, then the penalty for accidentally filing incorrect paperwork (address street of buyer mispelled) on its sale should be 177 years. Common sense.

Remember that the people proposing and writing new gun restriction laws are not you and me--they will try to write them--and allow them to be interpreted--in the MOST restrictive way possible, not the least. Criminals will not be affected, and you and I will find it harder to locate a gun store, and easier to spend time in jail if we violate the thousands of regulations that seem better at snaring legal gun owners than at preventing "gun violence."

And that's because there are only two ways of preventing all "gun violence": eliminate gun-ownership (practically, if not legally), or reshape the human soul. Which one of these steps do you feel Mr. Kennedy supports, in all his common sense?

He's right about one thing: these restrictions will be a heck of a lot easier to pass if they can get rid of the NRA!

 

The liberals interpret this as extremism---> shall not be infringed.
They are in defiance of a direct Supreme Court interpretation and order.
The founding fathers meant exactly as they wrote it --> shall not be infringed.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interpreted it exactly as the founding fathers meant it when they wrote it-----> shall not be infringed.
Any questions?

 

The privilege to keep and bear arms shall be dispensed by the State according to whatever "reasonable" and "common sense" criteria officials may set.

 

regardless of who wins the election, there is a lot of litigation to go to determine just what the 2A covers.

personally, i think the guns most of us own are safe unless BHO packs the court as FDR threatened to do to get his unconstitutional ideas put into place.

the future of NFA items is an interesting situation that may well be decided by what level of scrutiny the court decides is appropriate. keep in mind there is 50 some years of history showing virtually no criminal misuse of legally owned NFA items. even the lowest level of scrutiny is going to have to come to the conclusion that NFA items just are not a threat to anyone if there is even a hint of honesty in the decision. I don't know if that will open the floodgates by removing 922(o), but it probably means at least existing NFA items are fairly safe. I don't think NFA or GCA68 will go away, but some chunks are vulnerable.

I don't see the courts ever undoing laws that prohibit the violent, the insane, the very young, or those who cannot make rational decisions due to drug abuse for instance. Those are clearly reasonable. There may be some questions about whether a life time ban on felons who committed non-violent crimes is appropriate, but the basic concept of banning people who have shown they are not suitable to own firearms is not going away. The exact parameters will be scrutinized, but it won't go away.

I doubt the courts will ever undo laws like the instant check or ID cards for firearms owners. This is akin to voter registration and the courts have never objected to that. I am not thrilled with it, but that is where I think it will go. I do think that waiting periods are likely to go away. I do think the ID cards as practiced in NJ and NY will go away since they are way too burdensome. Something like the Illinois FOID card will probably pass the test though, since the burden is very low. I think any burdensome scheme that involved high fees or taxes, or long waits, or unreasonable requirements (like fingerprints) will not ultimately stand up.

That about covers the keep side. I have no clue what they will do on the bear side. I do suspect that open carry has a good chance of becoming the constitutionally accepted means of carry, over say citizen's choice (of OC or CC). In the end the courts may just say bearing arms in whatever manner one chooses is appropriate. I suspect the courts will be very suspicious of the way most states handle CC permits if CC is part of the right (and I think that is what they will rule). A few like PA and NH where the burden is very low, may survive. The ones with high fees, and things like fingerprinting will go away.

 

'Scuse me, but last time I checked, that law, (The NFA) was still on the books, and being enforced. It might be that the Heller court would strike down an abusive tax on ammo, but the Heller ruling itself in no way establishes that.

 

Obviously the writer knows nothing about the NRA. You see its main function as an organization is to promote the shooting sports, and training in marksmanship. The political part is the job of the ILA.
Get a clue.

 

We got into the mess we're in because pro-2nd Amendment reps tried to appease the anit-2nd Amendment folk. Was a Heller a win, mayhaps, I think it is more of a draw that can be worked from to accomplish greater victories for the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment. Heller is the that little amphibious craft that got us to the beach but we've still got barbed-wire and MGs to get past.

A lot of the liberal Bill of Rights hating left are hoping wel'll be appeased. They're hoping that a sneaky and invalid move to the center will cause us to cease to puruse our God given and Founding Father endowed rights.

We can't slow down, now is the time to ramp up our efforts. I work constantly to convert non-gun owners into gun owners. I have taught two of my professors to shoot. And once I'm a member of the bar and have a stable job I plan efforts to organize my local patriots to work to educate my fellow Americans on their rights. Also I'm going to get my Instructor license in Decmeber so I can train more people to get their CCW permits. We must not take one step back, we must not rest, unto the breach so forth we must go.

 

if they thought that NFA weapons were such a threat to people of this nation, then they would have confiscated them around 1990 after they had them all in a convenient registry. But since gun control doesnt have jack to do with crime, they just decided to let the prices sore on them, making them terribly inconvenient to get. Now, they are seeing the prices de-value. No one wants them anymore because of the difficulties you'd go through to get one. That's exactly what they wanted.

The same will go with whatever else they ban in the future. They know that we arent the people who kill other people, and that very few use such weapons to do so (the snub-revolver .38 is still used in 60-odd % of crimes and it isnt an assault weapon) but they hate our life chocies/style/etc. nonetheless. That's why we'll need the NRA, because no matter what decision gets handed down, the gun-grabbers will still keep whining about how guns scare their kids.

 

The NRA aint going away anytime soon. And as a proud member of the NRA, I'm glad they're keeping up the fight.

 

Our guns are safe? Excuse me, but I'm here in Chicago. Given Daley's stance and his control of the media in town guns will NEVER be "safe" in Chicago. "Reasonable" to "King Richard" is complete prohibition. No matter what the Court says, Daley will do his best to limit gun ownership to the max.

 

Hang in there chicago guy, your handgun ban will be overturned.

Daley is a rabid anti-gunner but his days of prohibiting the private ownership of firearms are over IMHO.

The anti-gun movement lost the fundamental argument (i.e., that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right). The SCOTUS ruled it is an individual right, unattached to any militia, and the means for obtaining handguns cannot be overly restrictive.

Daley's days are numbered, as are the days of all rabid anti-gunners.

Sure there are alot of battles to fight but we won the fundamental argument. They lost big, and they know it.

 

As had already been stated, post Heller, outright bans on handguns, such as Chicago, are not going to stand although each will need to be fought.

Each case brought and won will add to the corpus of case law and make each subsequent challenge easier.

The SC very specifically said that their ruling was on the grounds of outright bans on one specific class of firearms and was not intended to challenge existing restrictions on other classes of firearm.
They did NOT say these restrictions were incapable of challenge, simply that they were not addresing them and this ruling was specific to this one case.

For anyone who thinks this is just word wrangling sophistry remember how much of the Heller case revolved around the placement of a comma.

The whole issue of 2A as an individual, not collective right is a major bonus and in some parts of the law world is being argued as "judicial activism" as it was not essential to the core ruling.

With this right now recognized and codified AND if we get the Chicago case won on incorporation grounds, then other challenges to other restrictions will be possible.

Next steps will be where the ban is not there but the hedging restrictions are unreasonable in the context of the exercise of the right, NYC is the obvious next one.

If this is successful, and this is much more problematic that outright bans, then it means that other "Unreasonable" restriction on the exercise, such as punitive taxation will not stand on constitutional grounds.

This then opens the whole world of cosmetic features and magazine restrictions to challenge, NY and NJ stand out as prime candidates.

This however will take time, effort, energy and LOTS of money and the issue at hand is, is the NRA, in it's current incarnation the organization for the job?

 

Justice Scalia informs us that:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Pp. 54–56.


Now how is this out-of-whole-cloth set of limitations on the right to be squared with the interpretive principle that "words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning" and that "normal meaning...include idiomatic meaning, but...excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"? Quite obviously, there is no reference to the felons or mentally ill in the text of the Amendment, and while those of the founding generation had the notion of felons, they did not have our notion of mental illness, which did not make its debut until the 19th-century. The same can be said, one suspects, about "sensitive places." (Indeed, it would hardly be surprising that plenty of folks in the "founding generation" did, indeed, carry their guns to school!)

So how are any of these limitations to be squared with the apparently 'scholarly' and paintstaking analysis of the clause and the guiding interpretive principle announced at the start? It is not at all obvious. Perhaps the thought is that the framers, if they had thought about schools, and how they would evolve, or if they were familiar, as we are, with the nature of mental illness, then of course they would have understood that the individual right of self-defense does not extend to the mentally ill or to those in schools. But the moment we go that route we then open the door to also asking, "Well, what if they were also familiar with modern urban area afflicted by poverty and gun violence, wouldn't they have also entertained a limitation on the right in the same way?" In which case, what work is the public meaning originalism really doing?

 

fiddletown, I sure hope you're right on that.

We have experience with Miller, in which the Gov't argued the "collective right of a militia" idea. The decision never addressed that, but starting in the 1960s lower courts began to decide that that's what Miller meant.

Wasn't until Heller that things were set stratight, and even then if ONE Justice had changed his mind, the decision would have been THAT'S EXACTLY what Miller said: No individual right.

I can easily see--and expect--any lower court now ruling, if for example the NFA were challeged, that restrictions on machineguns are "above doubt, as decided in DC v Heller." And it would take another SCOTUS challenge (with a similar make-up of Justices) to say, "Well, that's not really what we meant when we said that."

In my view, could go either way at SCOTUS, and until then lower courts are bound to uphold machinegun and "sensitive area" bans.

But I hope you're right.