How big is Heller vs. D.C.?

[kd7nqb]

Its a big case there is no doubt about it. However I dont think it will be the end all be all that some hope it will be. In all likely hood we see them through out the post-76 ban which will provide pretty simple cases for Chicago and similar enclaves.

It will be a good test of how much guts the court has.

 

[esq_stu]

Not comparable to Roe, IMO.

The right to an abortion is not expressly stated in the constitution. The Court looked at several Bill or Rights provisions and took the amendments as a group to mean there is an implied right to be left alone and pretty much do what you want to your own body.

Heller is about the plain language of the 2nd Amendment and not what is implied. (The decision will probably also take into account other amendments that guaranty rights.)

The aftermath of Heller will eventually generate a lot of litigation and legislation, after the dust settles.

It could change nothing or everything. But if Heller wins, and a later decision applies the 14th to the 2nd, I'll be eagerly praying with renewed vigor for the left coast states' comeuppance. Especially NJ, NY, and Illinois.

May the SCOTUS find that strict scrutiny applies!!!!

 

[Sam Adams]

...and they will say that DC cant ban handguns that weren't registered before 1976... those rulings wont apply to much outside of DC but will lead to lots of challenges of other states laws

If DC can't ban handguns that weren't registered before 1976, why can the federal government ban MGs that weren't registered before 5/19/86? There's no logical reason whatsoever. That's national, since the BATFE "lives" in DC, and is part of the same federal government that can do any damned thing it wants in DC (subject, of course, to any restrictions in the Constitution).

I think that even though the next logical case is to go for 14th Amendment incorporation, there's NO REASON why there cannot simultaneously be a case filed to challenge the '86 ban. The 2 cases are not mutually exclusive, and though Gura is a very bright attorney (or, at least, I'm hoping and praying that at least 5 of the Supremes think so), there are others in our corner who can bring either case.

As to the significance of this case: monumental. It will do no less than establish the importance and permanence of our liberties vs. the power of the federal government (because DC IS the federal government), or it will make our "liberties" an illusion, subject to reduction or destruction at the stroke of a pen.

 

[ilbob]

Have tried, and it hasn't worked...

If the feds say it is legal to carry State to State, via National Reciprocity, I will take them up on it...

A lot of work is being done on a state by state basis to rectify this issue. Its probably not as simple in CT, but you'd be surprised what some local effort can accomplish.

remember that what the federal government giveth, the federal government taketh away. and IF the SC ever gets around to abiding by the actual wording of the constitution, such a federal law would probably not pass muster. why would we want to encourage congress to ignore the constitution on any point? the goal is to get the federal government to abide by it. Not ignore it selectively.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

If time has shown us anything, it's that there is more than one way to eradicate our rights, this fight goes on forever no matter what in my humble
opinion.

 

[Pat McCoy]

If the court follows past history it will make a very narrow decision, one affecting only DC and possibly chicago and NY.

They have the opportunity to rule broadly, but that has not been the rule the past twenty years.

The ruling will be only one very small step in helping retain our rightd to use tools to aid in personal defense.

Jst my opinion (IANAL).

 

[txgho1911]

As far as incorporating the 2nd. The court I hope may make the distinction about the word used and the words not used. Congress and state are not in the operative part of the amendment. It has been better explained by others but I believe "shall not be infringed" incorporates itself.
Lot of briefs to read. I am sure the justices will not be reading every last brief. We may be depending more on the court staff to accurate in the summery they forward for the choice briefs with the best meat.

I know I will not be reading anymore that support DC. Dishonesty and imagination belong in works of fiction. Not SCOTUS.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Just For Clarity,

I'd like to point out that this "incorporation" BS is - well - BS!

The section in the FOPA (1986) that "allows" you to transport a firearm state to state while locked in your vehicle, and the new law stopping and prohibiting those frivolous law suits against the gun industry(The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act(or something like that)), both take advantage of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no incorporation needed from the Court. The Amendment itself grants Congress all the power necessary to enforce any of our rights upon the several states.

All we need to do is elect some representatives and senators who know this and have the impetus to enforce the constitutional protections of our rights. This is not something that the Court can do for us except on a limited, as challenged basis; meaning that Congress can pass all encompassing law to that end, and all the Court can do is shoot down individual unconstitutional laws. The Court route is pains-taking and pains-takingly slow, whereas Congress can do it all with one act in one session.

The important thing to remember is to look beyond Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment all the way to Section 5 of the amendment where the power to enforce Section 1 is found. It says nothing about "incorporation" by the Court. "Incorporation" is either a usurpation by the Court, or Congress passing the buck onto the Court for something Congress wants to avoid.

Regardless of how the Court rules in this case, Congress has the real power to set this right. You might want to remind your congress critters of this. Huh! Just letting them know you are on to them might help!

Woody

"The power of those in government to use common sense shall not be infringed. It is imperative, however, to elect people to those positions of power who possess common sense. Remember that at the next election." B.E.Wood

 

[green-grizzly]

I think if we lose it will be bigger than Roe by a mile. Adding mythical rights to the constitution is much worse than erasing ones that really are there.

My guess is that 6 or 7 justices will say it is an individual right. I worry that we will only get 4 who will apply strict scrutiny however, gutting the right in fact.

If we lose, Congress should put its money where its mouth is and repeal the DC law, as well as pass a law, pursuant to their power under the 14th amendment, guaranteeing the citizens of every state the right to keep and carry rifles, pistols and shotguns for the purposes of self-defense. Oh, and hunting.

 

[Vermonter]

Self-defense is a basic human right. Any official who denies that should be voted out of office.

 

[Coronach]

re: national CCW reciprocity

Just where in the constitution does congress have this power?

I'd start with the Full Faith & Credit clause.

Mike

 

[Ergosphere]

I've heard it said that if Heller loses, nothing has changed. I don't agree.

If we lose such a fundamental right which is clearly spelled out with all the excellent supporting briefs and history... if the Court still were to rule against an individual and fundamental right, then what good is the rest of the Constitution?

There's no "check" on the Supreme Court. Congress certainly wouldn't impeach a justice in the event that Heller is lost. Maybe another constitutional amendment could be passed (seems unlikely), but what's the point? What's to keep it from being misinterpreted as well?

Losing Heller would completely my break faith in government.

 

[Big Boomer]

There are many BIG issues with Heller, first is how we interpret the constitution. And more importantly can we butcher it to suit or "current" needs.

If we lose our 2nd, we WILL lose more than just that. If we allow them to ban ownership of the primary tool of the right to bear arms, hence the "arms", then there can and will be other things to follow. Why not restrict telephone and internet access or other mediums of communication? After all isn't the right of freedom of speech only if you can yell it in person? And then, only if no one gets offended and starts a riot.

How about the right to illegal searches and seizures? Well, we THOUGHT it was an emergency when we entered the home...we swore we heard cries for help. And low and behold we found these illegal handguns that we banned private citizens from owning.

Can't advertise beer or liquor actually being consumed because it might cause someone to want to drink it. We can't say bad words on TV or radio because it might offend viewers. Yet video games produced for children are worse than Saving Private Ryan. (also free speech)

Freedom of press anyone? Ever sat in a news room? There are pages and pages of stuff that come off that feed that can't be used because it is restricted.

Heller will be the first step (if it goes the way we want, and I pray that it does) is that basically we wrote the constitution as it was stated, not to be Frankensteined, or allowing line item veto's of it. It' there all or nothing. The founders set up the constitution to avoid the very issues that we are having today!

This IMHO is the end-all, be-all of decisions that we will face in our life time, and most likely our children's life time. This will decide if our society will ultimately fail or survive.

Look at other countries, we keep saying they are "going back to the stone age" with the draconian laws they enforce, and in turn bring back the good old draconian violence that goes along with a suppressed society. More wars, more violence, more hate, more blame, and less hope.

I can't remember where the stats are but somewhere on average each person breaks a law of some sort every minute.

 

[ctdonath]

Heller is huge because it resolves decades of hyperactive bickering over contradictory & ulterior-motive made-up principles into a single ruling. Yes, the verdict will most likely be very narrow as the case does address only 3 specific laws in a 10-sq-mi area as applied to a very simple situation - but to do so the court must articulate the principles used to make that decision, principles that subsequently can be used to address other laws. Whatever the reasoning, it will become the basis for all subsequent laws & legal challenges. No more will legislation & lawsuits be driven & decided by whatever BS each side can make up. Even if Heller loses totally, it will be for a particular reason that we can act on. That's huge.

 

[MAKster]

My prediction. The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amend is an individual right BUT "reasonable restrictions" are still constitutional. (The Court has upheld reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, religion, and free assembly.) D.C.'s handgun ban is overturned but NICS, sporting purposes test, NFA registration, mag capacity limits, and concealed carry laws will be considered "reasonable."

 

[ilbob]

re: national CCW reciprocity

Just where in the constitution does congress have this power?

I'd start with the Full Faith & Credit clause.

Nothing in there whatsover that says any license granted by one state has to be accepted by another.

 

[gc70]

but ... sporting purposes test ... will be considered "reasonable."

"Sporting purposes" might be hard to justify if the Heller decision focuses on self defense.

 

[ilbob]

but ... sporting purposes test ... will be considered "reasonable."

"Sporting purposes" might be hard to justify if the Heller decision focuses on self defense.

Sporting purposes will not be an issue at all. Its not relevant to the 2A, or to this case.

One could make a better argument that banning firearms only (or mostly) suitable for sporting purposes was constitutional, as opposed to baning those suitable for militia or self-defense use.

In any case, the RTKBA is not restricted to militia service or self defense. It is the individual's right to use it (or not to use it) as he or she sees fit.

 

[Coronach]

Nothing in there whatsover that says any license granted by one state has to be accepted by another.

Depends on how one interprets "acts" and "records", and what case law has followed from that.

Mike

 

[ctdonath]

DC law exempts "sporting purpose" from the "disabled firearms" restriction. That they rather pointedly do NOT exempt "home/self defense" is part of the issue.

 

[Daemon688]

Work within your state to get reciprocity with other states, don't ask King Kong to do it because while he might get it done the collateral damage is always high.

Hasn't worked very well in Minnesota. Our current governor during his re-election promised gun owners that he would get reciprocity granted with as many states that were similar to MN permit laws. Well, after the election guess what happened to that promise? Bear in mind that this man is a Republican and narrowly won the election.

I'm not going to get into the argument about whether or not the government has the constitutional right to push through national CCW. If that's your argument, why bother even getting a CCW? I mean the 2nd amendment afterall guarantees our right to bear arms right? It's already in our bill of rights, I don't need no stinkin permit......

 

[ctdonath]

Work within your state to get reciprocity with other states

Thing is, the problem is the reverse: I _have_ CCW in my state (GA) but can't influence another state to recognize it (I specifically want NY to, but they simply have no interest in doing so).

 

[ilbob]

Depends on how one interprets "acts" and "records", and what case law has followed from that.

I am unaware of any case law that requires states to accept any license issued by another state, other than by mutual agreement.

Now many states do accept at least some licenses from other states (DL's being the most obvious) but very few states accept other licenses w/o some form of mutual agreement. In fact, offhand, I would bet that the number of states that unilaterally accept other states CC licenses exceeds the number of states that unilaterally accept other states licenses in other areas.

 

[ilbob]

Work within your state to get reciprocity with other states

Thing is, the problem is the reverse: I _have_ CCW in my state (GA) but can't influence another state to recognize it (I specifically want NY to, but they simply have no interest in doing so).

You need to work on GA first to get a GA permit to be useful. IIRC, a GA CC permit is extremely restricted in just where you can and can't carry. I am told you can't even carry on a city bus.

 

[ctdonath]

We're talking reciprocity here.

Actually we're talking Heller's scale, so let's merge the tangent:

Heller focuses on the "keep" part of RKBA. That fits into "reciprocity" in two ways:
- may I "keep" a handgun (say, for hotel room defense - on the premise that a rented residence is often considered an extension of one's home) in other than my home state?
- as the issue of Mr. Heller "keeping" a handgun will/should promptly segue into Mr. Heller "bearing" a handgun outside his home, the result of that subsequent case leads to: may I "bear" a functional gun across state lines?