After 'Heller' Reason Can Prevail.The End of the NRA as We Know It?
- Thread starter Duke Junior
- Start date
- Status
Loosedhorse, a few things:
[1] Miller has always been a lousy and confused case. The opinion was hardly a model of clarity. In addition, Miller himself didn't argue his case. IIRC, he was actually dead at the time. So it was poorly understood and misapplied a lot. Finally, the 5th Circuit in Emerson got it right.
[2] And while I think that nothing in Heller precludes future challenge to the NFA, sensitive area laws, laws prohibiting possession of guns by ex-felons or ex-mental patients, or even shall issue CCW laws, I pretty much doubt that even under a strict scrutiny, compelling state interest test, which the Scalia also hinted in Heller should apply, many, if any, of those laws would fall. I can foresee fairly decent "compelling interest" arguments being made. Some "sensitive area" laws may be vulnerable, if they stretch what may be sensitive too far. And if the NFA remains, it may actually help strike down some current state restrictions on automatic weapons, suppressors and AOWs.
[3] I don't really want to get into arguing whether some of those law actually merit surviving under a "compelling state interest" analysis. But it's my gut feeling that in many of those cases government will be able to sustain a "compelling state interest" argument. Also, with most of those laws, our ability to secure appropriate means to defend ourselves isn't significantly impaired.
[4] The most vulnerable laws under Heller, and where I believe we need to focus at least our initial challenges, are the "may issue" CCW laws, other discretionary laws like NYC, outright bans, like Chicago, and perhaps some of the silly "safe handgun" laws like California and Massachusetts.
[5] I am concerned about the fact that Heller was only a 5 to 4 victory. If the composition of the Court changes, the whole "individual right" view, which is the cornerstone of everything for us, can be back on the table. While the Supreme Court has seldom completely reversed itself, it has happen. And even without a complete reversal, strict scrutiny can be a whole lot less strict with the wrong Justices on the Court.
[1] Miller has always been a lousy and confused case. The opinion was hardly a model of clarity. In addition, Miller himself didn't argue his case. IIRC, he was actually dead at the time. So it was poorly understood and misapplied a lot. Finally, the 5th Circuit in Emerson got it right.
[2] And while I think that nothing in Heller precludes future challenge to the NFA, sensitive area laws, laws prohibiting possession of guns by ex-felons or ex-mental patients, or even shall issue CCW laws, I pretty much doubt that even under a strict scrutiny, compelling state interest test, which the Scalia also hinted in Heller should apply, many, if any, of those laws would fall. I can foresee fairly decent "compelling interest" arguments being made. Some "sensitive area" laws may be vulnerable, if they stretch what may be sensitive too far. And if the NFA remains, it may actually help strike down some current state restrictions on automatic weapons, suppressors and AOWs.
[3] I don't really want to get into arguing whether some of those law actually merit surviving under a "compelling state interest" analysis. But it's my gut feeling that in many of those cases government will be able to sustain a "compelling state interest" argument. Also, with most of those laws, our ability to secure appropriate means to defend ourselves isn't significantly impaired.
[4] The most vulnerable laws under Heller, and where I believe we need to focus at least our initial challenges, are the "may issue" CCW laws, other discretionary laws like NYC, outright bans, like Chicago, and perhaps some of the silly "safe handgun" laws like California and Massachusetts.
[5] I am concerned about the fact that Heller was only a 5 to 4 victory. If the composition of the Court changes, the whole "individual right" view, which is the cornerstone of everything for us, can be back on the table. While the Supreme Court has seldom completely reversed itself, it has happen. And even without a complete reversal, strict scrutiny can be a whole lot less strict with the wrong Justices on the Court.
I wouldn't say that he'd dodging those issues, because those issues weren't presented in the case. But I don't think he is endorsing the current laws. He is narrowing the decision. It's proper that he does so, because the decision can really only address those issues actually presented by the case being decided.yokel said:
In my opinion...
The next battle for our guns should take place WITHIN THE NRA. We need to purge the NRA of these idiots that think R2K&BA is about hunting and that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to buy assault rifles.
The second ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.
The next battle for our guns should take place WITHIN THE NRA. We need to purge the NRA of these idiots that think R2K&BA is about hunting and that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to buy assault rifles.
The second ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.
And I suppose that you have the millions of dollars that will be needed to press the litigation challenging other gun prohibitions on the basis of Heller.Loomis said:
Loosedhorse
member
Purge? I think the anti-gunners would be VERY happy to see us fighting among ourselves.
I would like to persuade and convince those would don't think black semi-auto rifles should be legal (why whould they think that, anyway?) that maybe they should support us, just like those of us who don't hunt much would support them.
But divide the NRA? Doesn't sound like a pro-gun strategy!
ConstitutionCowboy
member
The NRA has it or knows how to get it. It's what we members pay dues for!
Woody
Well Woody, we agree on something.
[1] We need to be unified in our push to use Heller constructively to challenge gun restrictions.
[2] And the NRA has the resources we must have for the struggle.
[1] We need to be unified in our push to use Heller constructively to challenge gun restrictions.
[2] And the NRA has the resources we must have for the struggle.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
In light of the fact that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, all these "longstanding prohibitions" enacted by Congress are in truth relatively recent developments.
They certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.
They certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Loomis said:
I've tried in the recent past to obtain the voting record of the board members, and more info on those being proposed for membership on the board. If enough of us bug them, maybe they'll cough up the information. After all, we are the ones paying the freight and casting the votes that the NRA claims as its voting block.
Woody
green country shooter
Member
By the way, Mr. Miller of the famous case is buried in Claremore, Oklahoma, not far from the J.M Davis Gun Museum, one of the best museums anywhere, so you can visit his grave and see a great gun collection at the same time.
Master Blaster
Member
The NRA's most important job is to make sure that there are youth learning to shoot and hunt. The more new shooters NRA sponsored and affiliated clubs can train the more dedicated gunowners who vote there will be.
Join the NRA participate in shooting sports. Become an NRA certified instructor, teach your non gun owning friends family and neighbors to shoot.
Join the NRA participate in shooting sports. Become an NRA certified instructor, teach your non gun owning friends family and neighbors to shoot.
TEDDY
Member
NRA
the NRA is the official record keeping org.it was not set up to fight court battles.The ILA is the political arm.
are the posters that criticize the NRA, members?I have read many posts and most dont know what they are talking about.having been an NRA member since 1939 I do think I have seen much that goes on in the org and I know a number of directors.gun laws were scarce before 1968.does any one know how many schools had rifle clubs??NO,why not.WR Hearst sponsered a national postal match.DID YOU KNOW THAT?the DCM supplied the guns ammo and targets,the NRA kept the records.
If you dont belong to the NRA you are just scavaging.
the NRA is the official record keeping org.it was not set up to fight court battles.The ILA is the political arm.
are the posters that criticize the NRA, members?I have read many posts and most dont know what they are talking about.having been an NRA member since 1939 I do think I have seen much that goes on in the org and I know a number of directors.gun laws were scarce before 1968.does any one know how many schools had rifle clubs??NO,why not.WR Hearst sponsered a national postal match.DID YOU KNOW THAT?the DCM supplied the guns ammo and targets,the NRA kept the records.
If you dont belong to the NRA you are just scavaging.
JimmerJammerMrK
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 131
Very eloquently written, nicely done.
Autolycus
Member
Which is why we should vote a Constitution loving person like Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul.
No, because that will help assure that Obama, the biggest Constitution hater of the bunch, becomes President.Oldskoolfan said:
JImbothefiveth
Member
The NRA teaches people to shoot, and offers shoting instruction.
Gun bans would be bad for buisness, and I think the NRA really does want us to have our rights.
Bashing the NRA is a perverse sort of projection. Humans who feel powerless in a situation often redirect their anger at the wrong people, and even join the other side.
Improving the NRA is a great thing. But bashing it, discouraging membership, and tearing it apart from within, is objectively destructive to RKBA.
Sometimes the "establishment" can be boring, annoying, arrogant, or stupid, in any situation. But one needs to step back and ask what he/she wants the outcome to be, and what the best way to support that outcome is. Supporting the NRA is one way to support the desired income. Also do other things, join other groups, etc. However, it is counterproductive to spend energy on tearing down a powerful ally and representative.
I have a real problem with GOA, for example. They seem to spend more time undermining the NRA than working for RKBA. A "no compromise" group that goes above and beyond the NRA, that builds on its foundation, is a good thing. It can leverage the more "moderate" group's accomplishments into even better things, or it can serve as to help defuse accusations of extremism by being the extreme group that takes the heat. But not if its main purpose seems to be to undermine the moderate group.
Improving the NRA is a great thing. But bashing it, discouraging membership, and tearing it apart from within, is objectively destructive to RKBA.
Sometimes the "establishment" can be boring, annoying, arrogant, or stupid, in any situation. But one needs to step back and ask what he/she wants the outcome to be, and what the best way to support that outcome is. Supporting the NRA is one way to support the desired income. Also do other things, join other groups, etc. However, it is counterproductive to spend energy on tearing down a powerful ally and representative.
I have a real problem with GOA, for example. They seem to spend more time undermining the NRA than working for RKBA. A "no compromise" group that goes above and beyond the NRA, that builds on its foundation, is a good thing. It can leverage the more "moderate" group's accomplishments into even better things, or it can serve as to help defuse accusations of extremism by being the extreme group that takes the heat. But not if its main purpose seems to be to undermine the moderate group.
Sun195
Member
Well, by extension, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases that affirm individual rights - does that mean the ACLU is no longer needed? I mean, it's all been settled, right? So, making "common-sense" limitations (tweaks, if you will) on speech, religion, press, etc. are "ok" too because the basic rights are still there.
Speaking of "common-sense", I'm really tired of these folks using that phrase to describe their objectives. Gosh - don't you like common-sense things? What's the matter with you, do you hate mom and apple pie too? It's a cheap, tired rhetorical play to demonize those who disagree with them.
Speaking of "common-sense", I'm really tired of these folks using that phrase to describe their objectives. Gosh - don't you like common-sense things? What's the matter with you, do you hate mom and apple pie too? It's a cheap, tired rhetorical play to demonize those who disagree with them.
J23
Member
Lets not start kissing each other's @$$'s just yet. As TexasFats stated...
"Can you imagine what will happen if a bunch of flaming left-wing lawyers get appointed to the Supreme Court?"
Well be prepared, if Obama gets elected thats exactly whats going to take place... he is going to have AT LEAST one supreme court appointment during his initial tenure which means, one more extreme left wing, socialist liberal. Lets not forget the Heller decision wasnt exactly a landslide... split in half and the fencerider pushed it in our favor. Next time, we may not be so lucky, so dont cancel your membership just yet.
"Can you imagine what will happen if a bunch of flaming left-wing lawyers get appointed to the Supreme Court?"
Well be prepared, if Obama gets elected thats exactly whats going to take place... he is going to have AT LEAST one supreme court appointment during his initial tenure which means, one more extreme left wing, socialist liberal. Lets not forget the Heller decision wasnt exactly a landslide... split in half and the fencerider pushed it in our favor. Next time, we may not be so lucky, so dont cancel your membership just yet.
The Heller case is somewhat different to the federal court cases that have taken place before it, ie, Shelly parker and The Emerson case in that the justices are not looking for promotion, which always seems to get the democratic and republican judges trying to catch the eye.
I have been away from the computer for a while and am only just getting a look at the case. But from what i see i agree with Scalia and the others in what they say at first, but now how they reach their conclusion. I don't think self defence is protected by the 2A. This is one of the arguments of the dissenting justices. However again i do not agree with how they reached this point.
However the dissenting justices said
"(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right"
"(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.""
So, without too much of a look, i cannot see how they managed to say it is an individual right, going against DC, but still managing to say the DC law was constitutional. But in any event, i don't think any supreme court that is possible, even 7-3 would manage to get rid of the right to keep arms. Though, you never know.
I have been away from the computer for a while and am only just getting a look at the case. But from what i see i agree with Scalia and the others in what they say at first, but now how they reach their conclusion. I don't think self defence is protected by the 2A. This is one of the arguments of the dissenting justices. However again i do not agree with how they reached this point.
However the dissenting justices said
"(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right"
"(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.""
So, without too much of a look, i cannot see how they managed to say it is an individual right, going against DC, but still managing to say the DC law was constitutional. But in any event, i don't think any supreme court that is possible, even 7-3 would manage to get rid of the right to keep arms. Though, you never know.
- Status
