NYC Debate Thursday 11 Dec: “Gun Regulation After the Heller Decision: What’s Next?”

[archigos]

The following is a copy of an email I got from the Brady Campaign (yes, I am on their list... can't hurt to know what they're up to):

JOIN ME NEXT THURSDAY IN NEW YORK CITY
for a debate on “Gun Regulation After the Heller Decision: What’s Next?”
Dear Brady Campaign Member,

Please join me next Thursday in New York City where I will be part of a panel discussing "Gun Regulation After the Heller Decision: What’s Next?"

The discussion is sponsored by the New York City Bar and will be moderated by The New York Times' Supreme Court Correspondent Adam Liptak. The debate will be held at the House of the Association (42 West 44th Street), from 6-8pm on December 11th.

If your schedule permits it, I would enjoy having you attend. You can RSVP online or call (212) 869-2145.

Click here to forward this e-mail to friends, family, and colleagues in the New York area.

Thanks for all you do to support the Brady Campaign. I hope to see you there.


Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Speakers:
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York

TED CRUZ
Solicitor General of the State of Texas, 2003 until May, 2008; partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

PAUL HELMKE
President, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

ROBERT A. LEVY
Chairman, Board of Directors, Cato Institute; co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller

BURT NEUBORNE
Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York University School of Law

I'm pretty excited and hoping to attend - thought I'd pass along the info.

 

[mbt2001]

Whoa... for one brief second, I found myself wishing I was closer to NYC... I believe we call it a New York Minute down here.

Happy it passed.

Please post an update and let us know how it went!

 

[AJAX22]

I will try to make it, I have a finals study session a bit earlier, but hopefully I can get the evening off.

 

[Seenterman]

Let me know

Guys PM me if your going, I work at Lexington and 43rd and would be willing to go to make a showing of 2nd Amendment Supporters. Keep this topic active till then and spread the word!

 

[FLA2760]

This is a start. The draconian gun law requiring registration and permit to have a firearm in your home is from the Sullivan Act. The Sullivan act is based on racism and the corrupt days of Tammany Hall. Here is a link to a thread over at GT which talks about an NY judge throwing out an unregistered firearm charge due to Heller.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=962511


Information on The Sullivan Act.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html

 

[HeavenlySword]

I'm going.

 

[tpaw]

I'll be there!
This should be interesting! How do I get on their mailing list? You know what they say, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer".
(42 West 44th Street), What is the cross street?

 

[wcwhitey]

Please post an update, very interested, unable to attend.

 

[Kind of Blued]

Whoa... for one brief second, I found myself wishing I was closer to NYC... I believe we call it a New York Minute down here.

I like that.

I often think about how cool it would be to live in NYC as well. It does usually subside around the 60 second mark.

I'm also hoping for a range report. Er... whatever, they say. Let us know.

 

[MGshaggy]

I'd like to go, but probably won't be able to make it. Those of you that can, please post afterwards and let us know how it went.

 

[hnk45acp]

I too will try to go, I'm going to the range on wed so I hope to be able to convince some members to go. If Helmke thinks he can show up at a sympathetic city and spew his drivel he will be sadly mistaken. Let's get a big showing and show them that even in NYC there are 2A activists!

ps we should wear THR nametags

 

[archigos]

I want to go too but would have to take the afternoon off from work... which isn't a huge problem, but I can't seem to find somebody to make the 3 hour trip from Albany with me.

 

[Sinixstar]

(42 West 44th Street), What is the cross street?

If memory serves (been a few years) - that should be just west of 6th ave....

 

[hnk45acp]

It's actually between 5th and 6th ave

 

[Seenterman]

BUMP

 

[AirForceShooter]

I hope this winds up on youtube or somplace

AFS

 

[ServiceSoon]

Too much of a trip for me. Wish I could go.

 

[ar10]

Want to screw them up???
Everyone RSVP on line. 3 or 4 thousand from all over the world should do it.

 

[HardKnox]

wow i live nearby in nassau i would love to go but cant take off work im interested in seeing how this turns out, hopefully the people of new york can get some change for the positive.

 

[hnk45acp]

I'm going tonite as well as a few folks from the local range and someone from SCOPE NY (Shooters' Committee On Political Education).
Dave from SCOPE asked me to post his tel. no. if anyone wants to get in touch with him before they get there, its: 1 646 319 0106

 

[Superlite27]

Doesn't sound too difficult. Anyone familiar with the people he's speaking with? Any of them likely to bash Helmke in a debate?

Levy sounds familiar. Isn't he one of the people who argued on Heller's side in front of the Supreme Court?

 

[captlid]

Well I went

Being a local new yorker and all. The best part of that two hours was when the rep for the brady campaign asked the audience who owns a gun and over half the folks raised their hands.

That and the applause one guy got for describing what he went through with nyc's permit process. I liked his comment that "a right delayed is a right denied"

The legal eagles on the panel were discussing incorporation for the 2nd amendment with them agreeing that it was just a matter of time that it would be. But it would be a while the courts hashed it out.

I got a bit dissappointed that the guy from the cato institute on one hand said that part of the reason the 2nd exists as a check against tyranny, but then later on said that the 2nd does not protect machineguns and sawed off shotguns. Or at least that was the implication when he described how they presented the case to the court.

Very interesting to say the least.

 

[hnk45acp]

So I went to this thing and it was interesting. Not being a lawyer there were many things that were above my pay grade but I will try to recap.

It started with everyone introducing themselves and their experiences and thoughts on the Heller Case, not surprisingly the two people that disagreed with the ruling were Helmke (brady Campaign) and Michael Cardozo (NY corp. Counsel)

Helmke quoted Steven's dissent that precedent (however flawed ie: Miller) should have been followed.

There was discussion of incorporation under the 14th and the lawyers all seemed to think that it was going to happen but whether thru due process or under the privileges/immunity clause remained unclear

Also how were states going to apply the 2A, they all doubted a strict scrutiny interpretation.

Helmke went so far as to say that the correct way to decide these things were to run for office and legislate gun laws, which was immediately shot down by Levy. Levy said that if we allowed a 51% popular ruling on rights than freed slaves would never had the rights thru the 13th-15th amendments.

Helmke also brought up the fact that some conservatives thought the ruling was an example of activist judging which was also shot down due to the fact that the ruling affirmed a stated right and didn't create new law.

There were comparisons to the 1st and 4th amendments, how there aren't the kinds of restrictions applied to those.

Cardozo's basic stand was that if you don't like the way NYS's licensing scheme sue the state. It was maddeningly dismissive.

When it came time to speak many of those who spoke, myself included, were very eloquent but the anti people showed their positions with arguments based on fear, emotion and ignorance.
It basically showed that when discussing this topic in a logical/legal manner there's not much of an argument on the anti side and that the pro 2A side is right on pretty much every level.
It was an honor to meet Levy and he told me that he thought that incorporation was going to come via the California courts as it wasn't possible for the 2nd appellate here in NY could not overrule their own past rulings. He mentioned a case in california that was due to be argued Jan. 5th
He predicted that after that many laws would begin to be challenged.

Perhaps some else that was there could add to this as there was a lot of info that I can't recall.

 

[HeavenlySword]

I was there, sorry for the late report, been sleeping very poorly lately. (freshman college student, final exams inc tommorow, should be studying instead of posting on THR)

I arrived half an hour late, and saw how empty the room was

The guy from Texas really disappointed me, perhaps he toned down the 2nd amendment support to try to rally more 'reasonable new yorkers'

Legally speaking, they all defended their turf well, but it wasn't much of a debate going on.

I did not hear mention of the NYC AWB on either side.... and i fell asleep by accident -_-

 

[LaEscopeta]

I got a bit dissappointed that the guy from the cato institute on one hand said that part of the reason the 2nd exists as a check against tyranny, but then later on said that the 2nd does not protect machineguns and sawed off shotguns. Or at least that was the implication when he described how they presented the case to the court.

A big topic of discussion here on THR. This is what the Heller decision says (page 1 of the Heller decision Syllabus):

“…an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Heller also confirms the finding of the previous Miller decision that that “The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…” (ibid page 2) and they are expected to report to militia duty with their own weapons.

It would be difficult to successfully argue machine guns being used for traditional lawful purposes (although many have and will take up the challenge.) Having fun is usually lawful, but maybe the courts will not agree firing full auto for fun is protected by the 2cd amendment.

But just because the SCOTUS has not said machine guns are protected by the 2cd amendment, does not mean they have to be illegal. Polital actisim, not constitutional law, is the current path forward for removing NFA restrictions.