Heller Ruling Legal Impact - Collective Right

What will the legal impact be of Heller collective right ruling?

  • Heller doesn't get his gun, status quo otherwise.

    Votes: 25 18.9%
  • NJ passes HG ban, CA to follow suit.

    Votes: 34 25.8%
  • Bye, bye CCW... Hello federal AWB!

    Votes: 24 18.2%
  • FL, TX, AK, UT, MT secede; civil war ensues

    Votes: 49 37.1%

  • Total voters
    132
Status
Not open for further replies.

dcal

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
195
Location
Corzinistan
What do you think the legal impact of a collective right ruling will be?

I personally think, Heller doesn't get his gun, status quo otherwise.

Don't forget to check out the Individual Right Poll.
 
Last edited:
we're ****ed, thats what.

More bans and tight restrictions across the country will follow wherever possible, and the momentum will lead to more bans, such as a new AWB. Ammo serialization may even enjoy some of the momentum as well until eventually we lose all our rights, or until the issue heads back to the chopping board for another attempt, but with less chance of winning.

Pretty much back to 1994, but without a sunset provision and without much hope for it getting better for us.
 
None of the above.

Heller will lead to nothing immediate, no matter which way it is decided, with the exception of the resolution of the immediate issue; is DC's law valid?

The real concern is the wording of the decision and what exactly they find, for those will be the legal building blocks of the next round of supreme court decisions. We will either be on offense or defense after this, and I hope to God it's offense.

Heller is the coin toss that decides which team gets the ball.

Mike
 
None of the above.

Heller will lead to nothing immediate, no matter which way it is decided, with the exception of the resolution of the immediate issue; is DC's law valid?

The real concern is the wording of the decision and what exactly they find, for those will be the legal building blocks of the next round of supreme court decisions. We will either be on offense or defense after this, and I hope to God it's offense.

Heller is the coin toss that decides which team gets the ball.

Mike

Very well put, and that is really what I meant by, "Heller doesn't get his gun; status quo otherwise."

Is it possible to change the first option to, "Heller doesn't get his gun; <whistle> play ball!"
 
Heller aftershocks.

If we get a "collective rights" ruling, we will be in the same legal shape we were before we went to the SCOTUS.

However, many Americans will now be woken up to the reality that the legal system has ruled the "2nd amendment" null and void.

Since 74 percent of Americans believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right, many people who have been asleep will be rudely woken.

If that energy is used productively, it may be the best thing that ever happened to us.

The problem of course is we would need a new constitutional amendment, something simple like "the people have the right to keep and bear arms".

Maybe a comment allowing ccw, background checks and restrictions on felons and other violent people.

The worst thing for us is if we get what I call a WEASEL RULING, one where the SCOTUS says we have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, but the government can regulate it based on "rational basis" rather than "strict scrunty".

That would leave most people in the country thinking we have a RKBA when in fact we don't.

This of course is the crap the Justice Dept is trying to pull and I hope that is why the 255 Congressmen, 55 Senators and VP Dick Cheney submitted a brief.

Hopefully this political input will sway the SCOTUS not to even consider such a BS move.

I believe what we will get is the SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd amendment is an fundamental individual right.

The case was deliberately tailored not to get into registration, carry laws and other things.

If we get the SCOTUS to rule that the 2nd is a fundamental individual right, then things will get really interesting.

What if the ruling is a simple as this. The 2nd amendment is an individual right and in keeping with prior court rulings US vs Miller, the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms that can be shown to have some use for militia purposes or for modern warfare.

What if they ruled that the government and/or states could restrict gun rights if they showed a compelling reason subject to strict srutiny standards.

I bring this up because this is a High Profile case and if the SCOTUS comes up with a cryptic ruling, they are going to cause unneeded cases through both Fed and State courts all across the country.

I think they just may give a clear, concise and easily understood rulling.

I believe the SCOTUS wants reasonsable consistency across the country in the application of law.


Nicki
 
they will still leave it open, concise or not, so that it cannot be used to overturn anything like a new AWB or CCW ban (assuming such things would come to light at the rate things are going). The problem here is how rational basis differs among even the gun community itself. Some say a revolver is all you need, while some say everything short of machine guns is fine, while others are looking for an open field to test their vulcans and rocket launchers that they spent a godless amount of money on. The government is not much different in that sense. Just my thought...

There really is no way they'll rule a collective ruling, but if they did, then...see my first post. We'd be in for a snowball effect of trouble.
 
I voted for civil war but I don't think that will happen openly. But there will be a lot of sabre rattling and then it will go away. Within 50 years we will have national socialism in this country and I will be dead.
 
Americans are too big of feminized cowards to secede. No state will EVER secede again even though several should because the federal "government" has shredded the constitution and our liberties. I'll believe all this big talk from Montana when it is backed up by a grain of action.
 
I think the liberals on the Supreme Court will have handed the Republicans a great gift for the 2008 elections.
 
Whatever happens, a core principle must be enunciated. This will set the standard for all subsequent related laws & cases. If we get a predictable "collective right" result, the discernible collectives will see that as a right to regulate RKBA out of existence. Sure, it will take time ... but it will happen, as the collectivists will have a powerful tool, and the individualists will be going "but...but...FMCDH...but...".
 
ct, all that the "collectivists" will have is what ever military, jack booted thugs, and UN troops that will go along with them. We'll have ourselves, but it all boils down to whomever has the will to remain free.

Which is the most powerful: The will to remain free, or the will to subjugate? Clearly there are those who will fall in with whomever offers the biggest piece of cake, there are those who will simply await the outcome and go with the flow(the largest group I would guess), those who cluelessly follow the "powers that be", then there are those who understand what it is to be free - or at the least can imagine the desperation associated with not being free.

I cannot predict the future, but I do know what I'll tolerate in that future. As one of my tag lines says, "Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future."

Funny thing, the past. The less you know of it, the more vulnerable you are. In school, I paid scant attention to history, thinking only of what I wanted for the here and now and my future. My lack of the knowledge of history had allowed me to be suckled into a blind, headlong rush into life - a life others chose and steered for me instead of the path I really wanted or should have wanted.

Things are much better now, but had I paid attention to even the little bit of history I was presented with in school, my curiosity might have been piqued and I would have cast a few votes differently, spoke up, and done whatever necessary to become as independent of government as possible.

I've discovered it's never to late to study history and learn from it, but it can certainly be to late to recover a nation from its lack of attention to history. Let us hope and pray it is not too late for this country. The Court can hand us freedom and security bloodlessly with a simple one word answer to the question they posed for themselves in DC v. Heller. That word is "YES". That is all they need to say. It will need no clarification, no justification, no pontification. "Yes" will open the floodgates to a clarity that will clear the books of all the unconstitutional law limiting our ability to secure our freedom and defend ourselves from crime.

Maybe then Congress and the several state legislatures will begin to abide the Constitution. It is, after all, not just a set of guidelines, but an inviolable pact.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
 
Heller is the coin toss that decides which team gets the ball.

Good metaphor. While a collective right ruling might embolden the gun-grabbers, it's still not a given they would be any more successful. It means we must be even more united in making the point to politicians that infringement, constitutional or not, is hazardous to their political careers.

K
 
Okay, let's get real. No state is going to secede. No civil war will ensue. The reason is that, either way the ruling goes, it's going to be pretty much status quo. It will continue to be what it's always been, a candidate by candidate and law by law political fight.

K
 
I think there would actually be a decent chance of amending the Constitution to clarify that the right of the people to individually keep and bear their private arms shall not be infringed, and that any such infringements (whether by the United States or one of the several states) are subject to strict-scrutiny judicial review. After all, 31 states formally joined a pro-2A amicus brief, and 39 have adopted "shall-issue" CCW permits (or don't require a permit at all). Only 38 states are needed to ratify an amendment.
 
What? No "B, C & D" option?

That's not my answer, but it seems like a necessary option since the last 3 aren't mutually exclusive.
 
I posted Civil War for sh#%s and giggles.

Seriously, status quo but the Dems would feel enboldened in new gun control attempts.

But, I suspect they will attempt AWB II despite how many even amongst their ranks think it would be best to sit down and shut up when it comes to guns.
 
Wineoceros said:
What? No "B, C & D" option?

That's not my answer, but it seems like a necessary option since the last 3 aren't mutually exclusive.

I intended for them to be mutually inclusive. Think of it as:

A. Nothing will really come of it.
B. We'll be screwed in some ways, but not others.
C. We're totally screwed.
D. We're so screwed, the only other option is civil war.


Don't forget to check out the Individual Right Poll.
 
civil war, but at a senator level. If that fails, secession using diplomacy. If that fails, MT will stop exporting platinum. The celebrities will be in such an uproar that 922 will be repealed to allow platinum bling exports to CA again. Nelly will be on the news begging Pelosi to give MT what we want, so he can cover his new mercedes in platinum.


I know, wishful thinking.
 
rebooting the republic

If it is a collective right, or if it is an individual right that can nevertheless be abridged by a supposed compelling government interest, then this is not America.

Should possibilities for a peaceful reconciliation of differences regarding the fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans be completely exhausted, employing and executing non-peaceful means and other necessary measures cannot be off the table.

Such an effort may be required eventually to restore our Founder's dream; after all, its operating system is sound, but the hardware is problematic.
 
I voted for the "civil war" option... not because I actually think that will happen in the short term, or even later; but because a "collective right" ruling is so intellectually dishonest, we might as well tear up the rest of the Constitution.
 
I voted civil war, I hope not but I think it would be the crack in the compact that binds us all together. Once the constitution becomes negotiable without the will of the people being followed, it's all over but the fighting.

I have to wonder though if it is ruled a collective right of the many states to keep and bear arms. Would that mean if Montana wanted to, it could declare everyone in the state as part of the Montana militia, and require them to have an m-4 with a battle load out at all times, personal weapons also allowed in any caliber for markmanship purposes?
 
I voted civil war only because it's fun to talk about.

There's no way they are gonna rule it a collective right, the question before the court even calls it an individual right.

What they will do is call it an individual right subject to "reasonable" limits similar to the yelling "FIRE" in a theater type of thing.

Remember the wording of the question before the court:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”


It's already called an individual right in the question before the court, a question the court itself WROTE by the way, a VERY unusual move.

The only question is whether DC's ban of that individual right is constitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top