Next Steps after Heller?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When the technology matures for caseless automatics (and phasers/blasters...can't wait) the antis will make a move to ban them before they become "common use."

That's why it is critical to demonstrate that "common use" is prevented by federal and state legislation.
 
SHDWFX

This is why I said after incorporation, nailing down "in common use" is critical by building case law in a structured manner.

I would argue that MG's are in common use based upon the 200K plus already in private hands and registered with BATFE.

I would argue that caseless is a trivial change to ammunition and definitively a direct lineal descendant of blackpowder and therefore in common usage.

I would argue that any weapon using directed energy is a lineal descendant of an existing weapon used by Archimedes and the Greeks over 2200 years ago.
 
First, I'd say go for legal, affordable CCW everywhere. Given some of the wording, I'd think that the case for self defense would be the easiest to make.

Then make the case that semi-auto and even full-auto military style weapons can serve as excellent in-home self defense weapons.
I'd say that an AR or FAL loaded with fragmenting ammo is potentially a better tool for that use than a handgun or shotgun, depending on your environment.
More power, more accurate and controllable, and a lot more rounds - The same features that make them good for military use make them good for our self defense needs too.
Since the highlights of Heller I've read seem to focus largely on self defense, it makes sense to use that as a springboard.
 
I think another good step would be to force them to define reasonable restrictions as regarding only people with felony records, and those who are mentally incompetent to handle a firearm (and not just any outpatient psychology patient. They have to be legally deemed to be incapable of making their own decisions, or similar).


Therefore, a reasonable restriction would apply only to people who can get firearms, and not on specific firearms.
 
Sullivan law, please. I live in NY, and I cannot purchase a handgun without four character witnesses, a judge signing off, and registering everything I buy with the police. Just to keep it at home or the range, and God help me if I stop for gas.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

Folks, you've got the logic of the ruling backwards and upside down. The underlying concept isn't that machine guns are banned because they're not in common use. It is the opposite--the Justices formulated the "common usage" test specifically to eliminate any right to machine guns from their ruling.

They're not going to be receptive to arguments that machine guns actually are in common usage, or that the reasoning is circular and that MGs would be in common usage if they weren't banned.


(And I honestly didn't sign on here after months of absence to post a bunch of rants about machine guns. It's just that I'm seeing a lot of folks here who aren't understanding that the Court is not going recognize a right to keep and bear machine guns, that that is the whole point of the "common usage" test, and any attempt to get an RKB MGs that is going to result in a clear ruling in favor of a ban.)
 
I'd like to see a challenge to restrictions on purchasing handguns in other states; why can I be trusted to pass a background check in my state of residence, but not in another state???

Recognition of my firearms permit nationwide is expected (drivers licenses work that way, firearms licenses ought be no different).

One big question I'd like settled (the right way, of course) is the potential conflict between 2A and 5A: do the rights of property owners trump those of citizens to bear arms? Typical example: can a property owner ban keeping of arms in my vehicle while on the owner's property?

Some of Scalia's references also open interesting lines of inquiry: can protective vests/garments be banned from civilian use, and can daggers/dirks/swords/switchblades/clubs be banned from civilian keeping and bearing?
 
Last edited:
and any attempt to get an RKB MGs that is going to result in a clear ruling in favor of a ban
Click to expand...

You may be right, but Scalia is a brilliant jurist if nothing else. I'm sure he clearly understands the circularity of the "common use" standard of measure. It wouldn't surprise me if he put it there on purpose to (1) pacify Kennedy and (2) leave an opening for future clarification. Maybe I'm dreaming.

One step at a time either way. Nobody expects the MG rules to be overturned next year or the next. Probably not even in the next 10 years. It took us 70 years to get to this level of infringement, and it will take awhile to get everything back.

Regardless, "common use" is phrasing that must be further assaulted and clarified, or 100 years from now, ARs and Glocks will be what muskets are to us today and we won't be allowed to own the new tech.
 
Get rid of all below 30rd mag bans!
Make CCW more standard and shall approve
Get rid of states that make you jump throw hoops to get a gun
State assault bans
State/federal park bans


In that order!
 
You may be right, but Scalia is a brilliant jurist if nothing else. I'm sure he clearly understands the circularity of the "common use" standard of measure. It wouldn't surprise me if he put it there on purpose to (1) pacify Kennedy and (2) leave an opening for future clarification. Maybe I'm dreaming.
Click to expand...
You might be right about that. The end result, though, 2009-style, is that J. Kennedy will turn thumbs down on any machine gun case that comes before the court, so it will lose, 5-4.

I have to agree with you that J. Scalia must see the circularity of their logic. As do, I assume, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. And probably Kennedy. As do the dissenting Justices, who specifically mocked the test in their dissent. I don't know what their agendas were--I just know it must have been danged hard to come up with an individual rights ruling, connected with a militia purpose, that doesn't automatically legalize the primary infantry weapon of the National Guard. (Especially when you throw Miller into the mix, which I believe held that only weapons of a type that are used by the military are protected by the 2nd.)
 
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly! However, I think undoing the '86 machine gun ban may be doable at the Congressional level in the foreseeable future. It can be shown that there are more than 200,000 registered machine guns out there, only one of which has ever been used in a crime. I think Scalia's comments on "dangerous" weapons is more intended to fire a shot across the bow of anyone attempting to use the 2nd Amendment to justify possessing hand grenades, RPGs, Sarin, etc.
 
+1 on incorporation. That allows going after state (and municipal) infringement.

I read that this may have to go to the Supreme Court, and that, in order for that to occur, it will require a "stubborn" defendant. Hmm. Daly?

Next, IMO, is strict scrutiny. I understand this will make an awful lot of the "games" under way illegal. (Ammo registration, microstamping, etc.)

Finally, on my wish list, would be recognition of the right to self-defense as a civil right. The final bogeyman is the employer who infringes your rights at your workplace with threats of termination if you violate company policy.
 
Looks to me like the key steps are:

1. Incorporation - there are very few laws as nasty as DCs that are strictly federal. If we want the best battleground for litigation we need to attack the onerous state laws in places like Chicago-nois and California. So we need incorporation first.

2. State AWBs - if "common use" is going to be the test, then state AWBs serve a two-pronged purpose. They open up more states to semi-autos (making their usage more common) and they develop the basis for an attack on NFA.

3. 922(o) - What happens when common use is only uncommon due to legislation?

4. NFA - What is the difference between commonly used (protected) semi-autos and unprotected (currently) MGs?

At least that is how I would try to crack that egg. Coordinated effort among gun owners being much like herding cats, I fully expect to see 922(o) and NFA challenges before the incorporation issue has even been decided with the result that several Circuit Court of Appeals will already have bad precedent and be closed off by the time someone like Gura/Levy mount a well-organized attack.
 
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.

I think many of us don't realize how strong the hostility to guns is among the kind of highly educated urban folks that get appointed to courts and such.
 
Personally, I think a small home rule town in Illinois that actually believes in the 2A should pass an ordinance banning all firearms within its corporate limits, but not enforce it.

Then the NRA can sue them and it can go through the court system fairly quickly since both sides of the issue really want the same thing. Kind of like how there was only one side in the Miller decision.
 
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.
Click to expand...

If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around PLANNING revolution.


There. I fixed it for ya.

I should like to point out that Scalia did NOT close the book on MGs. What he very skillfully did was craft the ruling such that MGs were not deemed to be protected in THIS ruling.
 
I believe that 922(o) can be challenged in the near future, but not until we systematically take apart any bans targeting specific types of weapons (based on features, etc.).

The NFA, I can't see being challenged at all, except for how it's at the discretion of local law enforcement. Altering the NFA to put the burden of proof on the law enforcement whether they believe a person will commit a crime with an NFA weapon would certainly be one good step ahead.

If we can set a precedent that bans on specific classes of firearms is not covered by 'reasonable restriction', then eventually we could get 922(o) taken as a ban on a class of firearms. Machineguns will still be 'restricted and regulated' as per the NFA, but the registry would be opened.
 
What are the odds that at least one SC Justice will retire during the next Presidential term? This was a 5-4 decision. A single change of Justice could turn it the other way.

Maybe the "next step" is to work hard to get a President that is less likely to appoint, and/or a Senate less likely to confirm, a Justice that would reverse the ruling.
 
What are the odds that at least one SC Justice will retire during the next Presidential term? This was a 5-4 decision. A single change of Justice could turn it the other way.

Maybe the "next step" is to work hard to get a President that is less likely to appoint, and/or a Senate less likely to confirm, a Justice that would reverse the ruling.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to say it, it means pulling the lever for John McCain!!! :banghead:
 
If Scalia hadn't been willing to throw machine guns under the bus, it would have been 5-4 the other way and we'd be sitting around contemplating revolution.
Click to expand...

That would have perhaps been the world's first violent revolution by the people against the ruling government to be staged on the Internet.

THR leads the charge!
 
Guys, I'm voting against Obama. Which means voting for the candidate most likely to make sure he doesn't get to stuff another moonbat in the Supreme Court... Which means I won't be voting for Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Bob Barr, or even Ross Perot. I'll walk in, hold my nose, and vote for McCain.
 
Use the amicus briefs filed in support of DC as a laundry list for elected (and appointed, for that matter) office housecleaning across the country.

You could also use that list and others to write letters to various organizations and their individual members that you may have influence with, (obviously only the ones not specifically created for gun control lobbying - I doubt a well-written letter to the VPC is going to do any good even if you happen to be a member's best customer) and remind them that some of their customers don't appreciate their attitudes, and might be inclined to do business elsewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MtnCreek
  • Locked
Hearing protection act
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
7K
hso
hso
T
  • Locked
Post Heller Next steps.
Replies
9
Views
510
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
N
  • Locked
Arms of "Common Useage".
Replies
14
Views
873
Clerihew
C
C
  • Locked
Col. Oliver North on Heller
Replies
12
Views
1K
Stevie-Ray
Stevie-Ray
U
  • Locked
Scalia: SCOTUS will be hearing a 2nd Amendment Case soon
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
jamesbeat
J
Back
Top