Heller and Machineguns

[Prince Yamato]

I think they'll probably render the decision that an individual in good standing (ie, not a violent felon, mentally ill person, etc.) must legally be allowed to acquire a weapon of their choosing. The steps to take possession of the weapon must be reasonable and not discriminate against classes of people nor cause a delay in the ability of the person to obtain the weapon in a reasonable amount of time (probably 24-72 hours or whatever an NICS delay is). Registration could possibly be green-lighted provided that you can register ANY weapon you want, it doesn't cause an "unreasonable" delay, and there is no "unreasonable" cost associated with it. IOW, I could get easily get a semi-auto AK-47 in NYC, BUT I may have to register it with NYPD. The registration however, must take no longer than 24-72 hours and it wouldn't cost anywhere near the $300+ it costs to register a weapon in NYC today. Ideal? Hell no. But it is still better than it is in NYC today. It basically would give politicians the ability to look like they were doing something to fight crime. And they could always pour more tax dollars into police over-seeing the registry or some garbage like that. We'd still get our guns. Then we could always fight registration in a later court case.

 

[divemedic]

The stuff in your post, Prince, is entirely beyond the scope of Heller. There will be nothing on state issues, NICS, AWB, registraion, machine guns, or anything else. that was not even being considered here.

 

[General Geoff]

machine guns, or anything else. that was not even being considered here.

While the ruling probably won't touch on machine guns, I bet the justices were (and are) thinking long and hard about what the future of machine gun legality will be if they strike down D.C.'s handgun ban. The two bans are practically identical, and if the Heller ruling doesn't spell out that the machine gun ban is unconstitutional, it will certainly place it about an inch from the edge of such a decision the next time a machine gun case is brought to the court.

 

[brighamr]

"heller" + "machine gun" = discussed about 90 times thus far

 

[H088]

No gun should be illegal IMO, but guidelines should be placed on purchase of MGs.

Maybe something where a person would have to own a pistol for 5 years prior, as well as making sure the person had no mental disorders, etc.

If you demonstrate proper training and safety, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to own one.

 

[Glockman17366]

I think Heller is the wrong case to be discussing selective fire and full auto firearms.
U.S v Miller is the case to use.

"Miller", rightly or wrongly, determined a sawed off shotgun wasn't a militia firearm. However, one could make a case that a machine gun is, in fact, a militia gun.

 

[jrfoxx]

but guidelines should be placed on purchase of MGs.

Maybe something where a person would have to own a pistol for 5 years prior,

How does owning ANY other type of gun, for ANY length of time, prior to being "allowed" to own a MG prove, or help, anyone, or anything at all? The 2 types of guns have virtually nithing in common except they fire chunks of lead, propelled by gnpowder, at fairly high speeds.Thats where the similarities stop. The worlds best, safest pistol shooter, is likely to be a horrible shot for a fair while with his first MG, as shooting the 2 has nothing in common.

Whats to stop me from deciding to use a MG for evil purposes, and just sitting on my mandatory pistol until I get your greenlight to get the MG I want? it does nothing except add yet onother pointless, stupid, costly restriction on ownership of a certain tye of gun.

 

[H088]

A mandatory wait of 5 years as well as applying for a class 3 weapons permit would stop the uncommitted people from buying MG's while allowing others who are committed to purchase them.

 

[Gifted]

What about the people who are committed to them, but don't have five years? If I'm going to die of cancer in two years, but still want a machine gun, that kind of kills my dream of having a bullet hose.

The people who are going to commit crimes with them are not going to wait five years, or mess with the legal process. The crazies won't care if they have to use a semi or somehow wait five years. You're affecting my rights, just to defend against a statistical anomaly.

 

[Zangetsu]

unless people completely ignored scalias comments about MGs not being militia weapons because they didn't exist at that time

I HATE it when people make that argument; it's the equivalent of saying that only words and religions that were in existence at the time are covered under the first amendment, and yet no one ever calls them out on that. I mean really, saying that the 2nd amendment only covers muskets and flintlock rifles is just as silly as saying that Scientology is unconstitutional or that radio, TV, and/or the internet are not protected by our freedom of speech. Arms = weapons, case closed.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I HATE it when people make that argument; it's the equivalent of saying that only words and religions that were in existence at the time are covered under the first amendment, and yet no one ever calls them out on that.

and I am sure that when the opinion comes out and they somehow state that the MG ban is reasonable because of that, he will be taken to task greatly and harshly. I'm one of the ones going to do exactly that.

 

[AJ Dual]

unless people completely ignored scalias comments about MGs not being militia weapons because they didn't exist at that time

IMO, don't read ANYTHING into Scalia hinting at the "The founders didn't forsee the evilllll techology, WAH!" argument some anti's use against the 2nd Amendment.

The justices will often ask leading questions, or make comments that diametrically opposed to their own views, or even different ones that play both sides of the issue at hand to probe the thinking of the presenting lawyer. They play Devil's Advocate constantly, and they love to lay traps and landmines for both presenting counsel to expose contradictions or inconsistencies in their arguments.

I don't recall if his comment was directed at Gura or Dellinger, but it dosen't really matter either. He could have been throwing a softball to Gura, wanted to needle him with the modern guns vs. the founders argument even though Scalia dosen't believe it, or conversely, he could have been throwing it out there to see if Dellinger would bite, then destroy him later...

As others keep trying to pound the people with unrealistic expectations over the head with, the court likes to rule as narrowly as possible. They like incremental change, they fear that using the power of the SCOTUS like a sledgehammer to violently turn the course of the U.S. on any given issue will just encourage a see-saw effect, where the other branches try to undermine the court, or the court gets ever more politicized and reverses it's decisions every decade or two, which could eventualy cause the downfall of the separation of powers and all sorts of other nastiness that breaks the republic.

So everyone who's going to pout that the SCOTUS 'sold out' because they're going to rule narrowly, and just likely affirm the individual right, and overturn the D.C. ban and little else, please get that into your skulls.

If the whole machine gun red herring even has any importance at all, it's probably just being used as a litmus test that the court does not completely gut the government's ability to regulate firearms. While I'd think that would be just fine from a purely libertarian standpoint, it's insane to expect that to happen from a realistic one.

 

[everallm]

The next time you hear the "it wasn't invented then" cry, remind them that the Founding Fathers were all Classically educated (as in Greek, Latin, Ancient History etc) and point them towards.

Flamethrowers (Greek Fire)
http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/greek_fire.html

Directed Energy Weapons (Archimedes and the Syracuse mirrors)
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-224629.html
(Semi-busted as to practicality but the concepts were there)

Machine guns (Leonardo da Vinci)
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/Exploring-Da-Vinci-s-Military-Weaponry.id-3200.html

 

[XD_fan]

Everyone is getting wound around the axle over the MG sidebar that took place during the oral arguments. It was all just rhetoric and meaningless in the long run for DC vs. Hellyer. MGs are NOT the issue, whether DCs ban is constitutional or not is the issue.

If SCOTUS rules against DC and remains mute on the status of the 2nd, which they very well could do, it will be a step forward but not the one we'd like to see. The real problem lies with the split in the lower courts on the 2nd. SCOTUS really shouldn't and probably can't let that situation remain. They are responsible to see the law is applied uniformly and in accordance with the constitution and standing law (not just something passed last week but law that has been adjucated and thus established as standing law) across the entire country. To not rule on the individual vs collective issue would be a massive failure to resolve this issue.

It was pretty clear during the oral arguments they were making fun of DC and their position, Gura got to make a few points, there was some handwaving and verbage tossed around about weapons in general, which included MGs and that was pretty much it. Lots of red herring was tossed out that day. I was actually disappointed there was not more substance in the questions from the bench. But then it would also appear the majority of the court thought DC's argument was a strawman put together by a bunch of idiots.

Not to hijack this thread but its interesting, in light of DC vs. Hellyer, that King Richard (does he wear the Bar Sinister?) of the Daly is calling for opening the registry in Chicago. Whether this is just protecting a crony remains to be seen. But the timing is still interesting.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

A mandatory wait of 5 years as well as applying for a class 3 weapons permit would stop the uncommitted people from buying MG's while allowing others who are committed to purchase them

Gun laws stop criminals from getting guns,

I hope that was sarcasm.

 

[wolf13]

Not to hijack this thread but its interesting, in light of DC vs. Hellyer, that King Richard (does he wear the Bar Sinister?) of the Daly is calling for opening the registry in Chicago. Whether this is just protecting a crony remains to be seen. But the timing is still interesting.

He isn't doing it for the people. Either him, or another official missed the cutoff by 2 days because they told an aid to do it. Don't think even for a second that the are changing their ways for the people.

 

[ctdonath]

The Heller decision will NOT EFFECT MACHINEGUNS, it will only effect the right of Washington D.C. residents to possess firearms.

Heller is about whether Congress (by the proxy of the DC Legislature) can prohibit possession of a category of firearms.
922(o) is about whether Congress can prohibit possession of a category of firearms.
There is, practically speaking, no legal difference.

The two issues are very closely intertwined. The same principles applied to overturn the DC handgun ban will in all likelyhood justify overturning 922(o). There is nothing inherently & dramatically more dangerous about machineguns than handguns; we're talking comparable tools with different applications, not nukes vs. squirrels, we're talking standard modern armament used to defend self, community, and jurisdiction.

There's a reason why machineguns were a major component of oral arguments.
There's a reason why the Solicitor General's brief & arguments amounted to "rule in favor of Mr. Heller, just don't take away our machinegun ban."
There's a reason why some judges kept asking "but what about machineguns? won't this legalize them too?" or some such.

Yes, Heller is not, strictly speaking, directly, about machineguns.
But the principles which justify Mr. Heller winning directly translate to me buying a new M4.

 

[ctdonath]

MGs are NOT the issue

MGs are a MAJOR issue. They are the third rail in this case which several judges are terrified of touching. They may not be "the" issue of the case, but the two DO intersect, and the proper path to achieve one touches the other.

 

[divemedic]

Yes, they are related, but this case will not settle the issue. Not even close. MG's are another case for another time.

If SCOTUS rules against DC and remains mute on the status of the 2nd, which they very well could do, it will be a step forward but not the one we'd like to see.

The courts could do so, but remember that SCOTUS is made up of people who want to leave a mark on history. This is the first time since Brown v Board of Education that a court has had opportunity to make themselves more than a footnote in an obscure law book. (Oh yeah, Scalia was a SC justice, as was Souter)

Look for them to define the 2A, but keep MG's and scrutiny out of it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He isn't doing it for the people. Either him, or another official missed the cutoff by 2 days because they told an aid to do it. Don't think even for a second that the are changing their ways for the people.

If he was smart, he would open the registry. Chicago is probably the best city in the U.S. to bring a follow-on to Heller and go after incorporation.

By opening the registry, they would deprive us of the number one choice battleground and make some other city foot the legal bill to defend it to SCOTUS.

Of course that is the great thing about battling the antis - if rational thought were a strong point you wouldn't have the disagreement to begin with.

 

[AJ Dual]

Well, for one I'm hoping that Daley will be stubborn, and be as much the "useful idiot" when it comes to 14th Amendment incorporation, that Mayor Fenty was in getting a (hopefully) individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Do any attorneys out there know the precise jurisdictional basis for Heller? If it was not 42 U.S.C. § 1983, would a positive rulling in Heller open up the § 1983 fee shifting provision to future 2nd Amd. actions?

 

[jlbraun]

Do any attorneys out there know the precise jurisdictional basis for Heller? If it was not 42 U.S.C. § 1983, would a positive rulling in Heller open up the § 1983 fee shifting provision to future 2nd Amd. actions?

Can you expand?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Do any attorneys out there know the precise jurisdictional basis for Heller?

The original complaint alleged 42 USC 1983 as well as 28 USC 1331, 1343, 2201 and 2202.

You can read all the case filings here:
http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

 

[IllHunter]

Re: King Richard

It was his henchman, Ald. Richard Mell whos' lackey neglected to re-register his (no doubt) pearl handled derringer. So, said Sir Mell, (Father-in-law) to HRH Buck Flagoyovich governor of da relm (nepotism,geundhiet!), ammended the law he originally sponsored (so much for term limits) in 1983 that grandfathered those with handguns in Chicago. This then is more "grandmothering" as these are all "muthas" of the uncommon variety. P. S. their latest creation Pinocchiobama has fooled the dems and been annointed as the "Emperors New Dummy" IF you think any of this is a fairy tail,pm me and I'll give you details.:banghead: