romma
Member
So whats the proper way to bury a gun again
Remember, if it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up...
So whats the proper way to bury a gun again
It could, and IMHO, will be much broader than that. It will probably determine whether the 2nd amend protects an individual right to own any firearms.
While that's true regarding the Lautenberg amendment, it still does not constitute ex post facto since domestic abuse was already illegal before the amendment. It is the result of being convicted of domestic abuse that has changed due to Lautenberg, not its status as legal or illegal.
If Heller goes down bad
I'll buy a gross of Kel-Tec p3ats and when they take one from me, I'll put another in my pocket and go on with life.
ctdonath said:If SCOTUS takes the case and rules it "individual", then the groundwork is in place to start tearing down gun laws, starting with overturning 922(o), NICS/Brady, etc. and then moving to make the states obey it as well.
Now we've got an NRA-paid and NRA-supported lawyer saying that he "wants to register guns",
The Constitution says what the courts decide it says and it means what the courts decide it means.
I don't really see the risk in Heller going bad. So far only one Circuit Court of Appeals has seen fit to overturn a federal firearms law based on the Second Amendment and only one other CCA claims to recognize an individual right in the Second Amendment (though it has yet to invalidate a single law based on that right).
For the vast majority of the United States, we already live in the "worst-case" scenario of Heller. There are no Constitutional protections, just whatever protection you can force at the ballot box. As undesirable as that sounds, it has still been fairly effective and a collective ruling on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court would probably make it even more so.
The chances of that working for machine guns is, frankly, about zip. I'd be amazed if even the best lawyers in the world could argue a single member of the SCOTUS to the pro-gun side, there.
If you are referring to Stephen Halbrook, then the reason he stated he wants to register handguns is because D.C. doesn't allow new handguns to be registered, effectively prohibiting their ownership. As counsel for Seegars (the NRA attempt at Parker/Heller) he was trying to overturn the same law but was denied on standing.
That representation couldn't be more wrong if you had actually tried!gattsuru said:Seegars was tossed on standing simply because there had been no adequate proof of a threat of prosecution (due to a stupid standing issue unique to the 2nd amendment). Parker didn't get a victory on that matter because it focused more on registration, it proved standing simply because the oral arguments by DC made it clear that the threat of prosecution existed.