How big is Heller vs. D.C.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...
This case is about DC. It has no direct bearing on any of the states. It is not about reciprocity at all. It is not about incorporating the 2A against any state.

I do wonder how this will affect whether non-residents who may stray into DC from time to time. If the court rules there is a right to keep and bear arms within ones own home, it would be very difficult to not extend that right to non-residents. It would appear that there would need to be some rethinking of some of the other firearms and ammo laws in DC.
 
I was talking about natural consequences. They can't conclude that Heller can keep a handgun at home without logically following it with other lawsuits covering incorporation (already planned), DC non-residents in DC (hotel room defense by US citizens), "bear" (Mr. Heller carrying to/from work), etc.
 
This case is about DC. It has no direct bearing on any of the states. It is not about reciprocity at all. It is not about incorporating the 2A against any state.
Click to expand...

This is not true and bears repeating, when you bring a suit against the Federal Government you can do it it in one of two places, your own Federal Circuit Court or the Federal DC Circuit because that is where the Federal Government resides!!! That's why the Supreme Court could not ignore the ruling nor could the DC government just let it go, if they had just ignored it, based on the standard handed down by the Federal DC Circuit Court a whole bunch of Federal Laws would have been struck down in short order. The decision was that broad and good for our side.

Additionally, once the Supreme Court makes it's decision, their decision will become the standard for the treatment of the second amendment nationwide not just in DC.
 
I guess one of the questions in my mind is if there will be any interpretation of the "...and bear.." part of the 2nd Amendment. I mean it seems fairly obvious to me that this means you can carry concealed or otherwise.

The big question is that IF they rule that carry is part of 2A then would states (like MD where I unfortunately now live) will at the very least be subject to legal action for refusing CCW licensing for upstanding citizens?
 
Actually, one of the laws in question restricts "bearing" arms - so far as to say you can't "bear" a registered handgun between rooms in your own house.

So yes, "bear" will be at issue, if only minimally so.
 
The big question is that IF they rule that carry is part of 2A then would states (like MD where I unfortunately now live) will at the very least be subject to legal action for refusing CCW licensing for upstanding citizens?
Click to expand...
Its is not going to happen in this case. maybe the 50th case after this one, but not this one.

This case is about DC, and about the RTKBA in your own home in DC. It is unlikely that the court will rule expansively on this narrow subject.

I expect that the court will rule that:

The RTKBA is an individual right. There does not appear to be any out on that one.

That the right extends to keeping and bearing them in your own home. I expect some wiggle room that allows restrictions on what types of firearms can be kept. There is that absurd machine gun scare to be dealt with.

That the right extends to keeping them in a manner that allows them to be used for self defense within your own home.
 
CCW will be tough... there are not many states that recognize it as a fundamental right. Most states recognize open carry, but CCW is a different animal in most cases.

IF the SC rules that the 2A is an individual right (ridiculous argument to begin with), FOPA will be a legitimate target. The content of that act and others including import restrictions and bans hinge almost completely on one thing:

"SPORTING PURPOSE"

This is the biggest farce in the history of gun-grabbing schemes. It allows the government to protect itself from a populace of equal power by determining which guns can be used effectively in war and making them illegal. This the exact OPPOSITE of what the Founders had in mind when they named the 2A to limit government. The ruling from the DC court was spot-on.... fundamental self-defense, the ability to repel invasion, and a tool to deal with tyranny. If the SC affirms this "sporting purpose" is irrelevant. FOPA would die with a competent lawsuit.
 
ilbob,
Can you consider that while the Heller verdict will most likely be very narrow, it will be based on principles which may be suitably employed in a wide range of future cases?
 
ilbob,
Can you consider that while the Heller verdict will most likely be very narrow, it will be based on principles which may be suitably employed in a wide range of future cases?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. This case alone would not do anything except change (or not) some things in DC. It will, however, be precedent for many, many future cases regardless of which way it goes. If the judges have the capacity to be honest, it will go our way and this case will be the basis for numerous challenges across the country.
 
To return to the opic question,

Heller is very large for 2A NOT in what it initially and directly affects but in what it can have the potential to lead to.

It is reasonable (as in likely not appropriate) to expect that the SC will rule narrowly on the 3 questions raised and only that. They are in the business of interpretation of the Constititution and how it affects law and not to draft law itself after all.

That means no other immediate direct affect on anything other than the specific issues in DC.

However the ruling now becomes in effect settled law that can be then used to challenge or support other laws, rules and regulations.

So, suppose we get a "positive" ruling stating an individual right, supporting the right to own and register a hand gun in DC and no disassembly or trigger lock.

It only affects DC at this moment and so as a 2A issue per-se is small.

However the potential down stream effect is huge.

We now have defined and settled law that can leverage next steps. Directly this will be immediately applicable to Chicago and will be then capable of extending and expanding a body of case law.

Each succesful case embeds the rights ever stronger in law.

Next stage may then be to build cases not against municiplaities but possibly restrictive states.

Build 2A rights step by step.

Heller is limited in itself......but in 10 years.........
 
Originally posted by Deavis: I don't want national CCW reciprocity. I don't want the federal government sticking its fingers where they don't belong and telling states they have to accept the carrying of arms by people they don't approve of. This is a state issue and states have reciprocity agreements to govern the carrying of concealed weapons. 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.
Click to expand...

So if a state banned all firearms ownership, you would be ok with it? I mean it is a states rights issue after all and you don't want federal control over these things.
 
ctdonath:
Actually, one of the laws in question restricts "bearing" arms - so far as to say you can't "bear" a registered handgun between rooms in your own house.

So yes, "bear" will be at issue, if only minimally so.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the DC law that bans carrying a handgun in your home is also the law that bans carrying a handgun on the street. If the SC paints with a broad brush, DC might just become open-carry.

Kharn
 
Tecumseh said:
So if a state banned all firearms ownership, you would be ok with it? I mean it is a states rights issue after all and you don't want federal control over these things.
Click to expand...

Pardon my butting in, but it's a PEOPLE'S rights issue, not a states rights issue. States don't have rights, only those powers the several states are given in their constitutions. That is where it might be good to start; or put it up to Congress and its power in the Fourteenth Amendment; or take it to the Court and slug it out there. That is what Heller and company did, and is the topic of this thread.

I know it sucks to be under the thumb of Daley, but you are in a position to do something about that. You have a voice and a soap box to stand on, and a vote and ballot box to place it in(good luck with those who count the votes, though).

Woody
 
the way I'm looking at this is that it'll set the motion for the next ten years of which way the gun argument is going.

We need as good a ruling as we can get, because the argument about WHICH guns we can bear (stupid, I know...but its there) is coming up quicker than the Heller ruling. If Heller goes bad, then we'll be facing two harsh arguments at the same time in what could be as long as a guaranteed 8-year anti-gun streak.

Or...maybe things will keep getting fought out the same way for another twenty years. Who knows. Thats whats so irritating about this.
 
ilbob,
Can you consider that while the Heller verdict will most likely be very narrow, it will be based on principles which may be suitably employed in a wide range of future cases?
Click to expand...
You obviously have not remembered a whole lot of what I have posted on this issue. I agree it likely will have long range effects (that are very hard to predict). I have also stated regularly that IMO, the immediate effects will be limited to DC, and future changes (if any) are years away.
 
IF the SC rules that the 2A is an individual right (ridiculous argument to begin with), FOPA will be a legitimate target. The content of that act and others including import restrictions and bans hinge almost completely on one thing:

"SPORTING PURPOSE"
Click to expand...
However, the import ban would seem to hinge not on a second amendment issue, but on the very clear power congress has to regulate trade with foreign countries. The import ban is not going away on 2A grounds.
 
Do any of you have specific info regarding possible or pending suits in Chicago that might follow Heller. I don't live in Chicago but am in Cook County and the proposed county wide ban would impact me directly. Lets plan....
 
IIRC, the DC law that bans carrying a handgun in your home is also the law that bans carrying a handgun on the street. If the SC paints with a broad brush, DC might just become open-carry.
Click to expand...

These are the sections of the DC Code being challenged; §§ 22-4504(a) deals with carry. If it is struck down as unconstitutional by the USSC, DC gets instant Vertmont/Alaska carry. § 22-4515 referenced in the code states "Any violation of any provision of this chapter for which no penalty is specifically provided shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both."

§§ 7-2502.02(a)(4):

A registration certificate shall not be issued for a …Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee’s duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.

§§ 22-4504(a):

No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:

(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

§§ 7-2507.02:

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.
 
Do any of you have specific info regarding possible or pending suits in Chicago that might follow Heller. I don't live in Chicago but am in Cook County and the proposed county wide ban would impact me directly. Lets plan....
Click to expand...

I just heard that some guy in the Northwest part of the city of Chicago got nabbed with 12 guns which were "unregistered". The cops did a warranted search of his place on the basis of an anonymous tip. Maybe he tipped them off to push this to the USSC. Highly unlikely, but wouldn't that be rich. After all, you do have to show that the government has harmed or attacked you in some manner for exercising a right which is protected in the Constitution. Of course, the whole registration issue casts a cloud over this. You can exercise your right Mr. Gunowner, you just have to register with the government before you do. Does that meet constitutional muster? Maybe, maybe not. Illinois has no protection for the right to keep and bear arms in it's state constitution. Does the 14th apply to all amendments in the eyes of the USSC? I'm not sure.
 
And I'm under the impression this will have a very big impact on the current Presidential elections.
Click to expand...

I don't think there will much impact if any at all on the election. The media is not printing anything about it. And many of the once in a while shooters I know that are not NRA or GOA members never even heard about it. Most people who are not interested in firearms don't even know what the 2nd Amdt is.

McCain :barf:is definately anti-gun as he voted against every pro-gun bill that ever came up on the Senate floor.

Obama, vehemntly anti-gun said "Anyone who wants a gun is crazy"
Then last week he said, "A person ahould be able to have gun for self defense." Therefore, we who want to defend our homes, loved ones and property should have a gun but we are crazy?:barf:

How do we win with dumbed down Americans to busy watching American Idol, Deal or No Deal, Britney Spears and Cindy Lohan and all of the other crap and smoke screens to our rights.:cuss:

John Bolton for President and why not?:D
 
McCain is definately anti-gun as he voted against every pro-gun bill that ever came up on the Senate floor.
Click to expand...

Actually McCain has supported most pro-gun bills including not renewing the AWB in 2004. He did sell out on background checks for private sales in 1999 (prior to that he opposed it; but he received $2 million in campaign funds from AGS for his 2000 run). He also sold out on gun locks at the same time.

Of course when AGS wanted him to oppose the AWB renewal, he sold them out just as fast in 2004. So that pretty much lets you know where we stand with McCain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Heller decided: Amicus Briefs or Re-wording?
Replies
11
Views
944
Richmond
R
U
  • Locked
Heller: Can we go back if we win?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
ozwyn
O
U
  • Locked
SCOTUS judge drops out of Heller?
Replies
12
Views
1K
bogie
B
G
  • Locked
Heller Tomorrow
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
Coronach
C
U
  • Locked
Lose the 2nd Amendment Incorporation Battle
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Ivy Mike
Ivy Mike
Back
Top