If Heller goes down bad

[romma]

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...

 

[Neo-Luddite]

This is why I'm hoping they take a pass and let the ruling stand.

 

[everallm]

Personal view like many is that the Supremes vote VERY narrowly in favour but tie it as closely as possible to DC only.

In that case little direct impact on current status initially, more concerned about the outcome of the next presidency. Possibility of another test case or two in NYC, Chicago etc. Maybe some definitive ruling in 10 years or so.....Brady and the other usual suspects will say the sky is falling and lobby furiously.

With a ruling against the individual right by the SC then once again I see it being very narrowly focussed.

This leads to slowly tightening state and federal laws with "death by duck peck" being the way forward, gradual erosion through "reasonable" micro measures.

I can't see the SC making any big sweeping statements or rulings here, by it's nature the SC is interpretative, conservative (small C) and incremental.

 

[rdhood]

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.

Bingo.

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.

That was not the point. Ex post facto be damned, they would pass a law saying anyone with a misdemeanor or traffic violation is ineligible to own a gun. That would reel in about 99% of all gun owners. The antis get by with this now because they can get sympathy against felons and domestic abusers. But if SCOTUS rules against individual ownership and ex post facto applies, they will be going for more than just felons and domestic abuse cases. They will be trying to get your gun(s) by any means because they know it will be very difficult... if not impossible... to replace.

What is amazing to me in this thread is that people think that if the SCOTUS rules against an individual right to have a gun, that people will be allowed to keep their weapons due to ex-post facto. That is a dream. Those people, no doubt, also support NICS because it does not appear to affect them. It is amazing what people will allow to happen simply because they believe that it doesn't... and won't... affect them.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

As to whether the the USSC is all that interested in protecting any amendment in the Bill of Rights, look what they did in Kelo vs. New London. Their finding was that if states and local governments wanted to protect individuals property from being taken away for what "passes" as "public good", the state and local governments only have to pass laws which more tightly define what a "public good" is. Well, when the governments at the state and local levels are trying to constantly acquire more revenues (taxes) to further their socialist agendas, what do you think the chances are that they will more tightly define what "public good" means if that results in them being unable to take private property away from individuals who can't, don't, or won't pay enough taxes, and giving it away to private developers on the cheap to develop the property into a higher revenue (taxes) generating enterprise.
That is exaclty what happened in Kelo vs. New London and the USSC Justices basically sniffled into their hankies and said, "So what?"

The USSC is no reliable guardian of our rights under the Bill of Rights. They have proven that over and over again. Why anyone thinks that will change because the topic is "guns", is beyond me.

Also, if the bill that says that anyone on a terrorist watch list is forbidden from purchasing and possessing firearms becomes law, how long do you think it will take for anyone who makes any public statements about gun control, should the USSC rule against the Second Amendment in Heller vs. DC, to be put on a terrorist watch list. They'll have us by the "you-know-whats".

Be very afraid.

 

[scout26]

If Heller goes down bad

Chaos, Revolution. Probably not though. We not to the point yet of number of 'mericans ready to say "ENOUGH !!!" and willing to risk it all/make it happen.

 

[romma]

Oh well, maybe they will still let us hunt ducks!?

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Oh well, maybe they will still let us hunt ducks!?


Not if PETA has anything to say about it. Of course that will mean that the politicians will no longer have to "pretend" to be hunters and they won't have to go on specialized "media covered" hunts to get elected.

 

[Johnny B]

Doesn't matter if the Court tries to keep it as close to DC as possible. It's still a legal precedent and is still useful in challenging similar laws.

 

[lanternlad1]

I want RKBA to be defended, but if we lose, it won't matter to me. If they outlaw guns, then I will be an outlaw, I guess. 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. A poor man has nothing to lose, really.

 

[romma]

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.

Assuming you are not in jail for ver long if they catch you with the first one...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

To be honest, I don't really see any bad ruling coming out of Heller. I think the case for an individual rights argument is too strong to refute and I think even if the Court opted for a collective rights argument, the resulting political backlash would ultimately benefit gun owners.

 

[another okie]

The most likely outcome for Heller is a ruling that the 2nd protects an individual right, but one which is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. What those might be is anyone's guess.

Ex post facto laws have nothing to do with gun bans. If Congress makes it illegal as of January 28, 2008 to own a handgun, and you own one on January 29th, you are a criminal.

That is not an ex post facto law, because the crime is the continuing possession of the gun. If a law became effective January 28, 2008 and made it illegal to have owned a gun in the past, that would be an ex post facto law. Just think about prohibition and drug laws.

 

[lanternlad1]

"Assuming you are not in jail for very long if they catch you with the first one..."

I live my life. I don't fear it.

If they jail me, so be it. They'll let me out sometime, and when they do, I'll go back to exercising my rights.

 

[ctdonath]

The 2nd Amendment is, ultimately, self-enforcing.

The upshot with Heller is that there is a Circuit court split over whether the 2nd Amendment is "individual" or "collective", and the issue is instantiated in whether a law-abiding citizen can, at minimum, have a handgun for home defense. (There is much obfuscating the issue, but that's the essence which must be ruled to address the obfuscations.)

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.

If SCOTUS takes the case and rules it "collective", then (with suitable subsequent cases) every able male 17-45 can go buy a new M16 and probably anything else his wallet & wife allow.

If SCOTUS declines the case, the 2nd Amendment is "individual" at the seat of federal government (per DC Circuit Court ruling), and the result is pretty much the same as if they had taken the case and ruled accordingly. Things subsequently get entertaining enough that SCOTUS eventually must take the issue.

And if SCOTUS, going completely loony, declares the 2nd Amendment null & void for all practical purposes, in the words of a great President faced with an unfavorable decision "they have rendered their verdict, now let them enforce it" ... this time against a non-trivial percentage of some 80,000,000 armed citizens. Let them take note that, shortly, some 18,000,000 citizens will take part in live-fire sniper war games code-named "Deer Season" (do not take this lightly).

 

[M_Olson]

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.

i would say that things like any gun bans such as the machine gun ban and whatnot would be the most likely targets. as far as nics and such, i think the pretty certain "reasonable regulation" that will be involved in the ruling will stop the elimination of nics. that wont stop me from crossing my fingers though.

 

[gattsuru]

The worst Heller will do, if it goes down bad, will give the other side momentum. The best it'll do, if it goes down excellent, is give us momentum.

Let's see... if we lose at the Supreme Court :

The next day is exactly the same as the day before, other than a flurry of Brady Campaign paperspawn. The unstopping tide of gun control marches on, but with fresh ammo. Now we've got an NRA-paid and NRA-supported lawyer saying that he "wants to register guns", the Supreme Court stating that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect anything, and evidence that the NRA is willing to "create activist judges", none of which will help.

2008 would go heavily pro-gun Republican. 30 million to 60 million voters will do that. It wouldn't change much. Some idiots somewhere would do a Randy Weaver. That won't change much either, other than some beefed up SWAT-antigun teams and fresh anti-survivalist nutcase opinions.

They may well end up banning your guns -- and by the time that the popular vote would allow such an act, the Court's decision wouldn't matter -- but they won't take them, bullets or stock first. They'll simply let you stay a felon until you're arrested for something else, break out a lawful search warrant, and then slam you.

Isn't the future pretty?

If the Supreme Court denies cert :

Handgun ownership inside one's own home in DC will still require registration, licensing, and be effectively impossible for the average person. There may be a change to the existing law by an incredibly minor fraction, in order to require the next court case to result in appeal after appeal rather than simply being overturned. The very rich or politically connected may well end up proving themselves 'worthy' of gun ownership, but everyone else will find registering their handguns nearly impossible -- expect multiple hundreds of dollars worth in registration fees, waiting periods, police permission, and transportation laws. In-home ownership of functional firearms may be made legal but, again, will face so many limitations that it will virtually require law-breaking to achieve.

This will be one more meaningless court case that does nothing but make future court cases more likely. The actual enforcement and meaning of laws will become even more complicated.

On the up side, further federal laws could be fought from inside DC.

If we win at the Supreme Court :

See above for what DC will look like in the immediate future. The law will be truly overturned, but even if it isn't simply replaced by a functionally identical one or enforced despite court order, it'll be messed with just enough to pass but not enough to actually change things.

In order to challenge any further national laws, even in the best case scenario that we could possibly get from Parker, we'd need to prove that the Federal Law a) did not involve a compelling governmental interest, b) was not tailored outside that compelling governmental interest, or c) did not act to the least restrictive means ('least restrictive' being a very, very lose limitation).

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. Maybe we'd get any new version of the Assault Weapons ban, and some of the more stupid definitions of "destructive device", but we'd have to prove our case against judges using the "If it saves just one life" metric.

That is, by the way, ideal. There's no assurances that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated, or get anything more than rational basis scrutiny. It should receive both incorporation and at least intermediate scrutiny, but it also should, you know, exist, and that's not guaranteed.

There'd be no assurances that bans on types of guns would be prohibited. Same goes for licensing, registration, and tax schemes -- those may, in fact, get some momentum behind them.

But it'd be a starting place.

 

[Blackbeard]

If they don't uphold Heller/Parker, I'm going after free speech next. We need to ban stories about school shootings from the news. They wouldn't keep happening if it didn't get them national notoriety, right?

P.S. Who is funding the Heller lawsuit?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now we've got an NRA-paid and NRA-supported lawyer saying that he "wants to register guns",

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. Note that the plaintiffs in Heller also wanted to register a handgun and their denial is the main reason we have this case.

I guess that is one good thing about Bob Levy bringing the case on his own. No excess baggage from people who can't get over what a past president of an organization said some 75 years ago.

 

[ilbob]

The Constitution says what the courts decide it says and it means what the courts decide it means.

No where in the constitution are the courts given this power.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

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.

Finally, somebody gets it! There is no Second Amendment now! Only the Fifth Circuit, and now the DC Circuit, have ruled that the Second Amendment has any meaning for you as an individual, and only one of those held that a law violates the Second Amendment.

If Heller loses, DC will be able to ban guns. I.e., no change.

Guess what? Unless you live in the 5th Circuit, your government can do the same, because the federal circuit court where you live has already "interpreted" the Second Amendment to provide you with no protection.

You are already living in the world of "Heller loses." Only if Heller wins will the status quo change.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

Read Alito's dissent in the machine gun case when he was on the 3d Circuit. While not a Second Amendment case (it was a Commerce Clause case), I am betting he would not be such a hard sell on this point.

There is your one Justice.

 

[revjen45]

If 2A is ruled a "collective right" the answer might be class action civil rights lawsuits demanding that the govt institute the socio/political nexus by which those rights may be exercised.

 

[gattsuru]

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.

I'm familiar with the law, and with his argument. I'll acknowledge that, despite how successful the right to privacy has been recently, he probably could not have argued against the registrations as well as the ban on registrations.

If the District Court's decision is taken and overturned, though, the only memorable part of this case is going to be the Joyce Foundation rejoicing over the revelation that "We are here wanting to register handguns. We are not here wanting unrestricted access. We're not here wanting to carry them, other than in the home."

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.

 

[Al Norris]

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.

That representation couldn't be more wrong if you had actually tried!

Seegars didn't have standing because of a unique position of the D.C. Circuit as regards Navegear. Between the two cases, Seegars and Navegear, the Circuit has set up a condition to standing, on anything other than First Amendment pre-enforcement challenges, which is nigh impossible to meet... That's what the conditional cross petition for Certiorari is all about.

In any case, all of the appellants in Parker except one, were denied standing. This, regardless of the stated intent to prosecute in open court by D.C. What gave appellant Heller standing was that he actually tried to register a handgun and was denied. That was the sole injury-in-fact that gave standing to pursue the case.