rodregier
Member
Will Mr. Heller live long enough for the second case to make it thru the Supreme Court?
Heller II is a go, latest comments from BFA
- Thread starter gopguy
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I bet this one doesn't get that far.
Now that the original case has been ruled on the lower courts have something to go by.
That was why the original case was the cornerstone, it will be what subsequent cases are based on for years.
Probably. Keystone is the one used in building an arch if I remember, the cornerstone is for foundations.
Been too long since I was in an engineering class
gopguy said:
Please remember that the District of Columbia chose not to follow the Constitution and has chosen not to follow the orders of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. What different outcome do you or Heller expect from another lawsuit?
CypherNinja
Member
TexasRifleman said:
I think the major point is that in arch construction, the 'keystone' is typically the Last stone put in.
Deanimator said:
Oooooh! Linky?
TCB in TN
Member
It is also a point that SCOTUS addressed pretty clearly with the "common use" language. DC can call a semi handgun a WMD for all I care, but when SCOTUS has already stated that an outright ban on items in common use would NOT be acceptable, then the writing is literally already on the wall.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Ahh LOL. You're right. Been too long since I took that class
scrat
Member
Dick heller is an awesome man. this is the kind of person who needs to be running the nra. we need to have a dick heller day
LightningJoe
Member
This, I think, is the important question. Lawsuits against DC post-Heller will be decided in view of the Supreme Court decision, DC will lose, and that's it. But who can make DC obey?
Will Congress intervene and punish DC's government? For guns? How? What good would court orders do when DC was already ignoring the courts?
If DC effectively resists the decisions of the courts, I don't know what anybody can or would do.
But if DC continues to refuse to accept its limited defeat, if it keeps getting sued and losing, thus increasing the scope of its defeat, it seems to me that enforcing its own gun laws would become increasingly difficult, that is, the DC gun laws will cease to have any effect.
If DC has lost a string of lawsuits (at least one decided by the Supreme Court) and it then tries to throw somebody in jail over its phony-baloney gun laws, then it might get somebody's attention.
If DC just accepted the Heller decision and worked within it, DC could still make gun ownership very hard. But if it won't play the game, people may just start to ignore it and do whatever they want.
The hardest thing then would be legally obtaining guns. Just because residents of DC conclude that the gun laws can no longer be enforced, that doesn't mean anybody would be willing to sell to them.
Vibe
Member
He won't be the first not to. Remember Miller.
Last edited:
Blackbeard
Member
I just hope he doesn't meet with an accident before the case is decided. It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
silentpoet
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 62
No it is not dangerous, ask Vince Foster.
Vibe
Member
In Hellers case, it won't make any difference. It's his lawyer and it's backer that are driving it. Heller was CHOSEN from among several candidates to carry this case. He really was not the initiator.
Yoda
Member
If DC had any brains...
I'd sure like to try to talk some common sense into DC. I know, it would be like trying to educate a pig on the finer points of quantum mechanics, but still...
If "gun safey" were DC's REAL interest, then they OUGHT to want folks to register 1911's. After all, the 1911 has two safeties (a friend counts the out-of-battery thingee as a third) while a revolver has none. In addition, a citizen trying to defend himself is generally much more likely to hit his target--and miss innocent bystanders--with a semi-auto than with a revolver. I know some of you may disagree, but if you want "safe storage," then you're much more likely to get compliance if you left folks keep a loaded magazine on hand for a semi-auto than expect them to keep loose ammo or a speed loader.
Just my $0.02
- - - Yoda
If at first you don't succeed, you're probably doing it wrong.
I'd sure like to try to talk some common sense into DC. I know, it would be like trying to educate a pig on the finer points of quantum mechanics, but still...
If "gun safey" were DC's REAL interest, then they OUGHT to want folks to register 1911's. After all, the 1911 has two safeties (a friend counts the out-of-battery thingee as a third) while a revolver has none. In addition, a citizen trying to defend himself is generally much more likely to hit his target--and miss innocent bystanders--with a semi-auto than with a revolver. I know some of you may disagree, but if you want "safe storage," then you're much more likely to get compliance if you left folks keep a loaded magazine on hand for a semi-auto than expect them to keep loose ammo or a speed loader.
Just my $0.02
- - - Yoda
If at first you don't succeed, you're probably doing it wrong.
Flyboy
Member
It's not "sea lawyering," it's examining the opposition's argument. By looking at it carefully, and holding it up against the ruling the is the cornerstone for future actions, we can figure out where it is strong, where it is weak, and how to attack it.
That's not "sea lawyering," that's "smart lawyering."
Cliff47
Member
Check out HR 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, which specifically addresses the tactics of the D.C. city government. Details may be found at: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/ . Enjoy the reading, and wait for the wailing.
Looks indeed like the more conservative freshman Democrats in Congress are a little worried they may get tarred by the Republicans because of their anti gun cousins in the DC Government. They are actually talking about a bill to take this out of the hands of DC city Government. This may make it through the House but I suspect the much more liberal, and anti-gun Senate will kill this effort...
August 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Dem Eats Dem: Congress Set To Take Control Of D.C.’s Gun Laws
» by Bill Dupray in: 2nd Amendment, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Democrats, Freedom, Law, Supreme Court
After the Supreme Court threw out D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you would think the District of Columbia government would obey the Court’s ruling; it is the Supreme Court, after all. But D.C. officials, despite having been found to have trampled on Americans’ Constitutional rights for thirty years, decided they liked their law and left in place a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which includes nearly all handguns.
These D.C. liberals are so lawless and out of control that the Democrats in Congress have decided that District officials may be unfit to make their own gun laws. From the Washington Post.
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District, making it easier for D.C. residents to acquire pistols, including semiautomatics, while eliminating the strict handgun-storage requirements imposed by the city.
Supporters say the bill has a good chance of passing the House, where pro-gun measures are popular. But it is unclear whether it would succeed in the Senate, where complex rules make it harder to push through legislation.
And of course all of this has become necessary because D.C. Democrats cannot be trusted to follow the law.
The measure, filed Thursday by several conservative Democrats, adds more fuel to the debate over gun control in the nation’s capital. After a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision June 26 ended the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban, the District replaced the ban with strict handgun limits, which critics say violate the high court’s ruling. [snip]
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said supporters of the measure think that the city has “basically thumbed its nose” at the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision by enacting tough limits on handgun ownership.
The law proposed by congressional Democrats would follow the Court’s ruling and D.C. residents would be freed of the bonds of their freedom-denying overlords.
The bill would scrap those limits, allowing residents to own handguns without registering them with the D.C. police department, provided they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.
Besides abolishing the requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded in their homes and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks, the measure would repeal the city’s prohibition on most magazine-fed semiautomatic handguns — a ban that has been in effect for decades and was not part of the Supreme Court case.
The legislation also would allow D.C. residents to buy and take delivery of handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Federal law currently prohibits gun buyers from acquiring the weapons in states where they do not reside.
We hear shrill cries from Liberals and ACLU types when President Bush wants to eavesdrop on terrorist phone calls coming into the United States. They whine that our civil liberties and privacy rights are being violated and that Bush is shredding the Constitution. The media let’s them get away with it, even though nobody has ever produced a single person whose rights were violated by these programs.
Then we have a bunch of lawless liberals, who were not only found by the United States Supreme Court to have violated their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights, but who continue their rogue behavior by enacting a law they know is still not in compliance with the Court’s ruling. Now it is to the point they are so out of control, they cannot be trusted to write laws and their authority will likely be taken from them.
Where is the media outcry about the chronic, criminal behavior of D.C. officials violating American Constitutional rights?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Dem Eats Dem: Congress Set To Take Control Of D.C.’s Gun Laws
» by Bill Dupray in: 2nd Amendment, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Democrats, Freedom, Law, Supreme Court
After the Supreme Court threw out D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you would think the District of Columbia government would obey the Court’s ruling; it is the Supreme Court, after all. But D.C. officials, despite having been found to have trampled on Americans’ Constitutional rights for thirty years, decided they liked their law and left in place a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which includes nearly all handguns.
These D.C. liberals are so lawless and out of control that the Democrats in Congress have decided that District officials may be unfit to make their own gun laws. From the Washington Post.
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District, making it easier for D.C. residents to acquire pistols, including semiautomatics, while eliminating the strict handgun-storage requirements imposed by the city.
Supporters say the bill has a good chance of passing the House, where pro-gun measures are popular. But it is unclear whether it would succeed in the Senate, where complex rules make it harder to push through legislation.
And of course all of this has become necessary because D.C. Democrats cannot be trusted to follow the law.
The measure, filed Thursday by several conservative Democrats, adds more fuel to the debate over gun control in the nation’s capital. After a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision June 26 ended the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban, the District replaced the ban with strict handgun limits, which critics say violate the high court’s ruling. [snip]
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said supporters of the measure think that the city has “basically thumbed its nose” at the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision by enacting tough limits on handgun ownership.
The law proposed by congressional Democrats would follow the Court’s ruling and D.C. residents would be freed of the bonds of their freedom-denying overlords.
The bill would scrap those limits, allowing residents to own handguns without registering them with the D.C. police department, provided they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.
Besides abolishing the requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded in their homes and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks, the measure would repeal the city’s prohibition on most magazine-fed semiautomatic handguns — a ban that has been in effect for decades and was not part of the Supreme Court case.
The legislation also would allow D.C. residents to buy and take delivery of handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Federal law currently prohibits gun buyers from acquiring the weapons in states where they do not reside.
We hear shrill cries from Liberals and ACLU types when President Bush wants to eavesdrop on terrorist phone calls coming into the United States. They whine that our civil liberties and privacy rights are being violated and that Bush is shredding the Constitution. The media let’s them get away with it, even though nobody has ever produced a single person whose rights were violated by these programs.
Then we have a bunch of lawless liberals, who were not only found by the United States Supreme Court to have violated their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights, but who continue their rogue behavior by enacting a law they know is still not in compliance with the Court’s ruling. Now it is to the point they are so out of control, they cannot be trusted to write laws and their authority will likely be taken from them.
Where is the media outcry about the chronic, criminal behavior of D.C. officials violating American Constitutional rights?
romeo212000
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 427
This reminds me of when the Supreme Court Ruled that it was not right for Andrew Jackson to pass th Indian Removal Acts and continue to remove the Indians from their land. Jackson's response was, "The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them try to enforce it."
KBintheSLC
Member
I think we need to make a currency run with his picture on it. He is a brave and patient man to fight these scum bags on legal turf. Frankly, I believe that loathsome fecal matter like the Mayor of DC ought to be dealt with like the French dealt with Louis XVI... but I guess that beating the crap out of them in court will have to do.
Especially in todays day and age where most of us are scared to death of dyin' for our rights. If we had a single gram of gall left in this country, I could come up with a few suggestions to deal with the criminals in DC.
I am not being obtuse, I still consider the decission as I mentioned before a (....... .......) due to the "reasonable restrictions" (a metaphorical keystone?) insertion stated on the SC document.
I am sorry if I raised some welts with my comments. But dont consider it a fatalistic approach to the subject. Just my way of analyzing the situation.
I am sorry if I raised some welts with my comments. But dont consider it a fatalistic approach to the subject. Just my way of analyzing the situation.
22-rimfire
Member
I wonder who is paying Heller's attorneys? I doubt Heller can afford it. Many of us might like to act, but few can afford the kind of legal team that is required for such long drawn out cases.
lacoochee
Member
Oops, not clear on my part, I mean DC is "sea lawyering".
Novus Collectus
Member
DC can and will be sued and they will lose money on court costs and attorney fees and DC doesn't have THAT much money. Eventually the taxpayers will have had enough when they wonder where their school budget went.
As I have read, Fenty as mayor can be sued. He has even less money.
Also, if the courts keep ruling their laws moot, then the result will be DC without some gun laws entirely because the courts will not uphold any charges or arrests for a moot law.
So the default of non-compliance is an even worse effect than what they are trying to fight.
Now, to top it all off, any permanent law DC passes I believe has to be approved by Congress. I doubt even a Democratic Congress would let them keep a law that the judicial branch has said over and over is unconstitutional.
Some Congresspersons really are that anti gun rights fanatical, but the majority will say DC is being silly and not approve their new law.
Mayor Fenty is tilting at windmills and it is only so long before he gives up, or the voters realize he is being quixotic at their expense.
johnsonrlp
Member
It's probably a good idea to go along with the spirit of the ruling, at least until you get new judges.
jason10mm
Member
IIRC, Hellers lawyer IS funding this out of his own pocket. That guy is the real hero. I'm blanking on his name, but THAT is the guy we need to protect from Vince Foster-like events.
Vibe
Member
I don't think Gura is funding it. Heller the first was funded by one of the big heads at the CATO Institute. IIRC it was Robert Levy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked