Heller denied again in DC - Duplicate threads merged
- Thread starter Kim
- Start date
- Status
jakemccoy
Member
I like the way Heller's team is handling this - no public statements or publicized strategies. They seem to know what they're doing and just go about their way dealing with the court system. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court is about the ultimate prestige for a lawyer. So, they have plenty of incentive. I’d work on their team pro bono if they'd take me.
The finding on "dangerous and unusual" reads
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Now, the SC indulged in a little legal verbal sophistry here, not unlike with Miller.
Miller did not say that that sawn off shotguns were not part of TOE for the military, they said that no evidence to the contrary had been presented to them to that effect so they weren't going to say it did.
Same goes here.
The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.
This does NOT mean that these prohibitions are constitutionally unchallengeable it means the case was not about this and as such they stay as is, UNTIL they are challenged on constitutional grounds at which point a determination can be made.
Ditto on "dangerous and unusual", the case was not about that and as such we cannot rule on what this exactly means YET.
IMHO, it will cover Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons as these are inherently dangerous, unusual and indiscriminate by nature and design.
It will cover things like MOAB fuel air bombs, cluster bombs, mines and other area denial munitions and weapons but would be extraordinarily difficult to extend to anything that is man portable such as an M16, SAW, etc.
Expect lawyers to make a fortune on whether the AND in "dangerous and unusual" means AND or means OR.......
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Now, the SC indulged in a little legal verbal sophistry here, not unlike with Miller.
Miller did not say that that sawn off shotguns were not part of TOE for the military, they said that no evidence to the contrary had been presented to them to that effect so they weren't going to say it did.
Same goes here.
The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.
This does NOT mean that these prohibitions are constitutionally unchallengeable it means the case was not about this and as such they stay as is, UNTIL they are challenged on constitutional grounds at which point a determination can be made.
Ditto on "dangerous and unusual", the case was not about that and as such we cannot rule on what this exactly means YET.
IMHO, it will cover Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons as these are inherently dangerous, unusual and indiscriminate by nature and design.
It will cover things like MOAB fuel air bombs, cluster bombs, mines and other area denial munitions and weapons but would be extraordinarily difficult to extend to anything that is man portable such as an M16, SAW, etc.
Expect lawyers to make a fortune on whether the AND in "dangerous and unusual" means AND or means OR.......
armedandsafe
Member
I'm going to sew rings on my suspenders from which to (some day) hang grenades. 
Back to earth from a flight of fancy: I can see select fire weapons, similar to or the same as, used by our military become available to us commoners. I don't expect to see such, as I am a certified "Old Phart," but I can envision such an argument being accepted by one of our Courts.
Pops
Back to earth from a flight of fancy: I can see select fire weapons, similar to or the same as, used by our military become available to us commoners. I don't expect to see such, as I am a certified "Old Phart," but I can envision such an argument being accepted by one of our Courts.
Pops
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I disagree. I think Scalia is saying as clearly as possible that he will uphold those laws if challenges are brought before him. If you look at his previous decisions, every one of those laws is in line with his beliefs on the role of the federal government.
From a practical standpoint, if Scalia will uphold them, then it means we have a long time to wait before those laws are going to be successfully challenged (if ever).
Scratchshooter40
Member
Bottom loading = machine guns
Well keep in mind what we have in DC. I wouldn't live in the District for any price. I've been there often and I expected what they have done. Generally, and I am a former narcotics/homocide investigator, most police officers are motivated by the drive to serve and protect against the lawless. I truly believe that DC officers are for the most part in that catagory. This is the bastion of bueracracy, control of privat actions, and interference with personal rights. And it is our capital, that's just sad. All you have to do is look at their crime stats to see how well the ban has worked. If you do your research you will find that those who legally obtain a firearm carry license do not commit crimes. Old axiom "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!". The drive by media supports the system and somewhat controls it, they don't want legally owned guns of any sort, much less handguns. Their elitist candidate is the same way. Of course that depends on what day he is talking, hard to keep track. I will close with my ramble by saying that in DC my trap gun, which is technically fed from the bottom into a tubular mag will by the strict letter of the law be a machine gun. The tube is below the barrel as well, ergo bottom fed.
Well keep in mind what we have in DC. I wouldn't live in the District for any price. I've been there often and I expected what they have done. Generally, and I am a former narcotics/homocide investigator, most police officers are motivated by the drive to serve and protect against the lawless. I truly believe that DC officers are for the most part in that catagory. This is the bastion of bueracracy, control of privat actions, and interference with personal rights. And it is our capital, that's just sad. All you have to do is look at their crime stats to see how well the ban has worked. If you do your research you will find that those who legally obtain a firearm carry license do not commit crimes. Old axiom "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!". The drive by media supports the system and somewhat controls it, they don't want legally owned guns of any sort, much less handguns. Their elitist candidate is the same way. Of course that depends on what day he is talking, hard to keep track. I will close with my ramble by saying that in DC my trap gun, which is technically fed from the bottom into a tubular mag will by the strict letter of the law be a machine gun. The tube is below the barrel as well, ergo bottom fed.
I agree that if some blanket attempt to throw out any firearms control laws from pre Miller is doomed to failure however as with Heller, it's about incremental change.
For example a Heller style challenge on blanket felon restrictions using an angelic who had a non violent disqualifier from 30 years ago would be practical, reasonable and achievable.
2A Incorporation and removal of "assault weapons" classification based upon magazine capacity or cosmetic features ditto.
How do you eat an elephant.....one mouthful at a time
For example a Heller style challenge on blanket felon restrictions using an angelic who had a non violent disqualifier from 30 years ago would be practical, reasonable and achievable.
2A Incorporation and removal of "assault weapons" classification based upon magazine capacity or cosmetic features ditto.
How do you eat an elephant.....one mouthful at a time
Last edited:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart,
I must disagree with you. Plug in Footnote 26 to what Scalia wrote and you will find it to be a disclaimer. The single word "presumptively" says it all.
The decision was written in the fashion it was to bring in the minimum number of Justices. That meant schmoozing Justice Kennedy with some soothing prose. It closed no doors, and in fact, purposefully left many doors open in my opinion. I can't read it any other way and have it make sense.
Woody
I must disagree with you. Plug in Footnote 26 to what Scalia wrote and you will find it to be a disclaimer. The single word "presumptively" says it all.
The decision was written in the fashion it was to bring in the minimum number of Justices. That meant schmoozing Justice Kennedy with some soothing prose. It closed no doors, and in fact, purposefully left many doors open in my opinion. I can't read it any other way and have it make sense.
Woody
JN01
Member
Semi-auto pistol = machine gun. Makes sense. The DC City Council next needs to pass a ban on pit bulls as pets as they are migratory songbirds. :banghead:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yes, it says that the Supreme Court will presume such regulations are lawful. It also says that the list is not exclusive.
Personally, I think you are reading more into it than is there; though I think everallm made some good points about how several of those might be successfully attacked with this Court.
Deanimator
Member
It's like Krueger's tactics against the Japanese on Leyte. Contact the enemy, fix him in his position, destroy him. Repeat as necessary.
They can keep retreating, but every time they do, there's fewer of them, and they have less to fight with.
Chicago will be the last banzai charge. It won't be pretty, but it'll be down to unorganized resistance after that.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart,
I agree with you about everallum's points, and that is the way it'll come down if at all. And, I am pleased you see that Footnote 26 is a disclaimer: that the Court presumes those laws and regulations are constitutional.
I see it as all those laws and regs being open to challenge - even the ones Scalia left off the list. If we manage to add just one more conservative/constitutionalist/originalist justice to the Court, there won't be so many compromises if any at all when it comes to our rights.
Woody
I agree with you about everallum's points, and that is the way it'll come down if at all. And, I am pleased you see that Footnote 26 is a disclaimer: that the Court presumes those laws and regulations are constitutional.
I see it as all those laws and regs being open to challenge - even the ones Scalia left off the list. If we manage to add just one more conservative/constitutionalist/originalist justice to the Court, there won't be so many compromises if any at all when it comes to our rights.
Woody
Deanimator
Member
They're no different from the last ditch defenders of Jim Crow. They're doomed, no matter how many futile, and even contemptible fights they put up. And in forty years, they'll also be viewed as the scum of the earth by society at large. But hey, it's the legacy they clearly want. I'm more than willing to help them get it.
rainbowbob
Member
Perhaps it should end up in the Smithsonian Institute.
Sam Adams
Member
If full autos are so "inherently dangerous" then why can most of us go out and buy one (an old one, after paying for the tax stamp, getting CLEO approval, etc.)?? If they are so dangerous, how come you could buy a brand-new one as recently as 22 years and 2 months ago?
Machine guns are not indiscriminate killers (even passing on the absurdity of an inanimate object DOING anything) - they must be aimed. Not so with NBC weapons, which don't kill or injure just particular somebodies in their effective area, but everyone in that area.
Machine guns are what the armed forces of every nation use, and have used for several decades. Increasingly, police forces have them. The idea that the militia can be prohibited from owning them is absurd - read Heller,Your logic would have the militia restricted to Revolutionary War-era muskets, as each improvement in firearms after that made them more lethal. When the armed forces have Star Trek phasors, are we supposed to make due with semi-autos?
Last edited:
ctdonath
Member
Only marginally more so than an AR15 and a twitchy finger.
I despise mis-application of such terms that, for most practical purposes, neuter the term. WMDs are "unusually dangerous", witnessed by the fact that people do not get together to use them for fun, as contrasted with, say, the M16s et al gleefully fired at Knob Creek. Applying the term to the latter renders the term useless.
K3
Member
Shame too, as it would take 4th of July fireworks to a whole new level.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
You mean like all of the spectators dying of cancer five years later?
I hope not, and I also hope that no one is dumb enough to try something pro se.
This is just too important to go for everything we might want before going for the low hanging fruit.
Once we get the low hanging fruit all collected, than you start going for some of the harder stuff.
I am not suggesting we should not be aggressive and go after everything we can get, but I am suggesting that right here and now, what we can get is limited. We are not going to get machine guns back any time real soon, and wasting time going after them now is going to put a limit on what we can get.
We have to go after incorporation next, and clean up the right to "keep arms".
K3
Member
Minor detail.
Nonsense, this indocrination video of the time period shows everything will be just fine:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2149878949626814717
It is ironic to think that what most of those men are being trained to do would leave them no different than the men used to clean up chernobyl, dying not long afterwards. Training them to advance into the hot zones after the use of nuclear weapons.
I saw an interesting documentary that tracked the soldiers in the trenches near nuclear tests. You know like those in the footage with the blast wave sweeping over top who then come out safely afterwards?
Most of those previously young healthy men had died within the decade of various odd illnesses and cancers.
Most of the 'scientists' and officers at a good safe distance did okay, as long as the tests turned out as expected.
Comparing nukes to small arms though is normaly something I expect left to the antis.
K3
Member
I know it's monday, but don't be so serious.
I'd keep folks at least 10 miles away from the fireworks show. A smidge more if we're talking an M-80 style firecracker like a W87 off a Peacekeeper.
Now back to the regulatly scheduled Heller thread.
ctdonath
Member
Kinda happens when sorting out the legal meaning of "unusually dangerous". Surprising how many gunnies will lump the two into that category....
- Status
Similar threads
