Next Steps after Heller?

[azredhawk44]

"Common Use" seems to be our enemy for our next goals, folks.

We need more military-level equipment to be in common use as a result.

May I suggest?

1. We all make it a point to put together short-barreled rifles (SBR's), get the permits for that, then to the same rifle also attach a suppressor and license that? Then file a class action suit with all SBR'd/Suppressed owners using this case as precedent, to have the GCA-34 taxes refunded and found unconstitutional?

2. Use that case as demonstration that "common use" is inherently impaired by federal legislation, in order to open up the FOPA-86 ban on new manufacture of machine gun receivers?

 

[fletcher]

I think defining common use will be just as big. IIRC, there are already a couple hundred thousand suppressors and MGs owned in the US - does this constitute "common use"? If not, what does?

Taking the angle that the '86 ban pretty much prevented something from becoming common use might be a good approach (this has been mentioned a few times already).

 

[lee n. field]

Next Steps after Heller?

Storm Mayor "Baby Dick" Daley's palace.

 

[Picard]

Yes, storm his place on July 11th, from 11am-1pm.

http://www.chicagorally.isra.org/

It'd be great if we could get some of you highroaders from neighboring states to come to this. It's time we gave Daley the one-two punch and enacted concealed carry in Illinois.

 

[Thernlund]

Then file a class action suit with all SBR'd/Suppressed owners using this case as precedent, to have the GCA-34 taxes refunded and found unconstitutional?

I wouldn't support the refunding of NFA taxes. That'd put a strain on the federal budget, and we'd just end up paying in other ways to make up for it (the refund).

Don't forget, any money you get back from the gov't will just be compensated for somewhere else. You're just paying yourself. Pay backs and stimulus checks are just stop-gap feel good measures. Giving everyone back their NFA taxes will ultimately do more harm than good.

Honestly, I don't even mind paying the tax. Just stop all the paperwork with the fingerprint and photo requirements and allow me to take possession at the time of purchase, and we're all good. Paying the NFA tax should be just like paying sales tax at the grocery store. I don't have to submit fingerprints and photos for approval and wait 3 months to get my milk and eggs, eh?


-T.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Future engagements:

1934 NFA: make the case that the reason they're no longer common is because of the impact of an unconstitutional law.

CHI: This will be a perfect case to get 2A incorporated, since it's such a close match to DC

Once incorporated, we can go after state level AWBs, and the few remaining states with "capricious issue" permit policies, both for ownership and carry. I wonder if the jerks in Trenton can read the writing on the wall? Yes, New Jersey, that bell is tolling for YOU.

Oh, and they can FORGET any new federal AWBs.

 

[Evyl Robot]

I believe that there are six states that don't have open carry of any kind. I live in one of these. I have to wonder if this case will spark changes as far as that is concerned. I would love to have OC as an option in OK. Not that I would abandon CCW altogether, but I do like options.

 

[brighamr]

"That'd put a strain on the federal budget"

I'm sorry. A $200 tax on a $20,000 M16 wont strain the federal budget. If you're worried about all the fed's not having enough money, why don't we cut out a few hundred fed jobs that are overpaid and serve no real purpose? (BATFE for example)


I pay $50,000 per year in federal income tax. I don't think it's OK to pay $200 more for a domestically produced item.


As for next steps, I agree with Geek.

 

[Thernlund]

A $200 tax on a $20,000 M16 wont strain the federal budget.

Note that I don't mean doing away with it. I mean retroactively refunding 70 years of taxes.

Doing away with it going forward is inconsequential. Giving back all that money isn't.


-T.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Next step IMHO is to explore what was alluded to in " Common use " however the SCOUS opinion was worded in such a fashon that almost anything is open , even imho kicking open the mg regestry , tho not revisiting miller so be prepared to pay the tax stamp lol . Scalia authered an opinion , He or someone else authored an agreement to get the " foot in the door " that the 2nd codifies an individual right . Now to be decided is both the " scope " and " scrutiny " of the newly recognized right . Ie just what " arms " does the right protect , and to what degree can an absolute right be impinged on ( Note that i did not use infringed )

The last " right " that was found in the constitution imho was abortion in 410 U.S. 113 (1973) . Now i will not state if or if i do not agree with the " right " to abortion , i will however note that from 73 we still have not sorted out what it means and to what effect it may be applied . The 2nd will be as long drawn out and as bitterly fought imho . Point is that SCOUS now says its a right for you and me across the nation . No matter what we would have liked to seen on a broad opinion , it is still better off than we were yesterday .

 

[brighamr]

"I mean retroactively refunding 70 years of taxes" - Now I understand, and agree. That would be wayyyy too much money for the feds to part with.

 

[RX-178]

I think that we should tackle the self defense angle first and foremost of all, since it doesn't get the knee-jerk media reaction that EBRs do.


Any state, city, or region in the country that does not in any way shape or form allow the carry of firearms by the average citizen (and anyone who has to prove why they need a firearm first no longer qualifies as 'average', but 'privileged') should be the next. Scalia specifically stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for self defense.

Going after the MG registry and state-level AWBs would be predictable, and far to easily vilified, to the point of them even questioning the Heller ruling ('It was a bad decision because now they want machineguns'... that just doesn't look good for us).

 

[ilbob]

I see a couple of obvious areas to look at.

Incorporation. Chicago is a good place to go after incorporation since the Chicago ban is virtually identical to the DC ban ad far as handguns go.

The real test comes when you get to the "bear" part of the RTKBA. A good start might be to file suit in federal court challenging the ban on carry in federal parks. Pretty innocent carrying a firearm out in the woods. Get a ruling that bearing arms is also protected, with "reasonable" restrictions (like nothing that weighs over 100 pounds).

 

[brighamr]

correction - "Scalia specifically stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for self defense"

In the actual decision, it was stated the 2nd was for self defense, and hunting.

So, for anyone that hunts with an EBR... that's what the 2nd is for.

 

[ARTiger]

Open carry on the 7 states that prohibit it. I'm checking into a lawsuit to challenge the state law on 2A grounds in my state.

 

[dburkhead]

One concern I have is folk trying to do too much at once which is just a good way to fail. (All or nothing usually means nothing.) It took many accumulated small steps to get in the hole we're in now and it will take many small steps to climb out of it.

My own thought would be to try to reverse the language in GOPA that the BATF interprets as restricting licensing of post '86 weapons. That, I think, is doable and will set the stage for further steps down the road.

 

[geekWithA.45]

CHI: This will be a perfect case to get 2A incorporated, since it's such a close match to DC

On second thought, don't go after CHI. Daley would bankrupt the city even further to defend against it. Go after some little podunk town that can't afford to defend themselves. There's no dishonor in that. The dishonor is in a system that allows a couple of town busybodies to pester the town council until they get 3 votes to divest people of their unalienable rights.


Get the incorporation ruling there, THEN go after Daley, after that ruling has rendered him helpless.

 

[Zedicus]

Next Steps after Heller

• Secure Heller Ruling with whatever it takes (more lawsuits etc) to make it "Set in Stone".
• Go after State level Weapons bans/Restrictions.
• Go after National CCW Reciprocity & OC Legalization.
• Educate Police on Firearms Laws to prevent them needlessly arresting people for legally carrying.
• Go after the Importation Ban.
• Go after the Hughes Amendment.
• Keep on the Defensive, ready to go Offensive at the drop of a hat.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I just said in another thread,
we have the foundation now to launch our offensive. we need to go after the loopholes that would allow for an so called assault weapon ban. that would be the next step.

In my state, we have to take it to the big wings in Chicago, I would normally suggest Springfield, the cap, but thats not where the power is....

Earlier today, I heard some lawyer say that since Heller was a DC case, that it did not effect the states..... That is the kind of krap we are going to be facing now. Thankfully that is a weak argument.

we got to keep it coming...

 

[Cacique500]

The VCDL alert had a very good point on MG's...

9. "Dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected (they consider machine guns to be such a weapon since most people do not own them).

The logic in saying machine guns are not protected because most people don't own one for self--defense (and hence are "unusual") is a circular one. More people WOULD own machine guns if they were EASY and INEXPENSIVE to get! But they aren't because of existing laws that infringed on the ownership of such guns put in place back in 1934 and 1968. Sheesh.

I think that's an extremely valid point - I've got ONE SMG now, and would have more if 1) they were more available (as in post 86 versions) and 2) were not cost prohibitive. If it helps, when the local militia gets called out, I'll bring my SMG.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

On second thought, don't go after CHI. Daley would bankrupt the city even further to defend against it. Go after some little podunk town that can't afford to defend themselves.

I dunno. There's more public impact in knocking a big turd like Daley over than the Podunk Town Council. The morale impact on the antis will be larger, and if even if we get the incorporation ruling we want, if it's against a small town, we'll probably have to sue Chicago to enforce it.

 

[everallm]

1. Chicago, as already stated this is as close to a slam dunk as we can have as the law in place is substantively the same.

In addition there are already "arbitrary and capricious" exceptions and restrictions documented extensively. It also sets the stage for the next Holy Grail of incorporating 2A.

2. NYC and the Sullivan Act.

In this the fine mayor of NYC is already insisting that the current in place rules would meet the SC guidelines. EXCEPT the Sullivan Act and it's implementation means you never OWN your own weapon, merely purchase a temporary 3 year lease which can be rescinded at the will of the police or politicians and with no effective recourse.

3. NJ and/or CA for the "assault weapon" restrictions on type of weapon, cosmetic features pistol grip, adjustable stock, magazine size restrictions.

Here we have the "in common usage" track to go down. For example, in NJ, magazines are capped at 15 rounds capacity. For any semi automatic rifle, it is nigh on impossible to buy 15 round magazines as they are inherently NOT "in common usage". Common usage for say AR-15's is 20 round and 30 round. It would be completely within the realms of legal sense to state the restriction is inherently illegal as it broaches the common usage litmus test. This is the same for the arbitrary lists of "evil" weapons such as an FAL which are inherently and demonstrably common usage.

4. CCW in non CCW states.

Here the possible route is the judgment section that states the constitutionality of the keep and bear for protection.Here you may justifiably posit that protection is agreed to be a fundamental right and NOT solely location based. If so agreed then CCW is inarguably legitimate.

Build the case law THEN 922(o) etc

 

[El Tejon]

Morton Grove

 

[ArmedBear]

Magazine size restrictions are interesting.

It would be a reasonable conclusion, from the "common use" test, that 30-rounders couldn't be banned (or 15-round pistol magazines, or whatever fits in the grip), but that, say, drum magazines for AR's, or 30+ round extended magazines for pistols could be banned.

Of course, a magazine size limit of 30 rounds wouldn't be as restrictive, especially in a semiauto, as a limit of 10 like some states now have. Most larger magazines don't work that well, anyway. It's just an interesting thought...

In this scenario, a token "assault weapons ban" could let the Senators claim to be "doing something" while establishing a legal magazine size limit of 30 or 40 rounds... Beats the hell out of 10, anyway.

 

[obiwan1]

Let The Games Begin!!!!!!!!