Supreme Court to Hear DC Case

[LightsOut]

-What's everyone scared of?

Will Scalia and Thomas vote against us? NO.

Will Alito vote against us? No. Alito, while on the Third Circuit, had a great voting record.

Chief Justice John Roberts? No chance.

That's 4. All we need is 1 more, and I'm very confidant in Kennedy. I even think we'll grab another 1 as well. I see this solidly 6-3 in our favor.

The only fear we should have is how far they will go in their opinion. It's legitimate to believe they won't go past only declaring outright gun bans unconstitutional, and although a step in our favor, doesn't do much to help the overly restrictive gun laws we have on the books nationwide.

 

[Sam Adams]

Woof

I find it very hard to believe the supreme court will open the door to legalizing "machine guns." They may have to define what are and are not "arms" per the second.

1. Machine guns (a.k.a. "full autos") are, in fact, legal in most states. There is a federal registry with about 200,000 full autos that most people can purchase, after filling out the appropriate paperwork, getting the local chief LEO's approval, getting a background check and submitting $200 for the tax stamp. Oh, yeah, and also paying multiple thousands for the gun/receiver/auto sear. Note that the high price is directly a result of the artificial choking off of new supplies for this market - these guns should sell for a couple hundred (for crap) up to about $2,500 (for good quality stuff that can be carried by one man). Belt-feds will, of course, be more.

2. At issue is Title 18, Section 922(o), which forbids the addition of any full autos manufactured after May 19(??), 1986 to the federal registry. IOW, no more guns can enter the supply for us proles after that date. This is a gun ban that is virtually identical in scope to the DC ban. If we win on the merits - i.e. if the Circuit Court is upheld (and that opinion is a truly well-reasoned and very well thought-out one), then ALL similar bans on an entire class of firearm are verboten.

3. The 1939 Miller case http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html stated:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

IOW, if you can show that a full auto (say an M4 or an M16, current issue for the average infantryman) "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" THEN YOU WIN UNDER MILLER. Combine that with a decision stating that bans on entire classes of firearms is unconstitutional, and you really can't lose.

 

[Sam Adams]

ilbob

Not a right, a power. Never forget only human beings have rights, government, its entities, and their agents when acting on behalf of government do not.

You're correct (my bad)...

...which, of course, bodes well for us in this case.

 

[Norton]

The worst thing about all of this is that there is nothing we can do except pray. there's no lobbying, not letter writing, no phone calls that will make a difference.

 

[everallm]

Robert H

I agree about your "First catch a Wabbit" piece.....mmmmm pie (drool).

I feel that the right of individuasl ownership, at least in DC will pass and the current statutes will be mostly or completely killed off.

My concern lies around the other Catch 22 that could have scuppered this case, the one in that you either have to break a law or be actively denied for the case to then be passed to the Supremes. No pre-emption allowed

It would be easily within the realms of DC government to be told, "Let 'em have pistols" and DC saying "We will follow the letter, of course. Oh by the way all FFL transfers need to be form a designated and zoned premise. The new zoning requirements in DC for a change of purpose of a building to allow it to be used for the sale or transfer of firearms are as follow....."

The rules then become so arcane, onerous and expensive that no one can pass the hurdle. No pre-emption allowed, "Your not being denied your rights, you just can't pass a NICS. That's a federal issue........."

If the Supremes don't cast the case to stop this sort of finessing the result may end up being useful to evreyone EXCEPT DC residents.

 

[Cosmoline]

At issue is Title 18, Section 922(o), which forbids the addition of any full autos manufactured after May 19(??), 1986 to the federal registry.

That's actually not at issue in this case. Parts of the DC gun ban are at issue.

This is a gun ban that is virtually identical in scope to the DC ban. If we win on the merits - i.e. if the Circuit Court is upheld (and that opinion is a truly well-reasoned and very well thought-out one), then ALL similar bans on an entire class of firearm are verboten.

No, the scope is quite different, and it's doubtful the ruling will be broad enough to capture all similar broad bans. But a good ruling will allow another case to be brought against the full auto ban based on the holding.

The worst thing about all of this is that there is nothing we can do except pray. there's no lobbying, not letter writing, no phone calls that will make a difference.

We can help pay for the lawyers and help get amicus briefs written.

 

[Sam Adams]

Clevernickname

You people are going to be sorely disappointed if you think if the Supreme Court affirms the DC Circuit ruling that 922(o) will go away, unlicensed CCW will become legal in all 50 states, that the 4473 and NICS will go away and it'll all be rainbows and unicorns.

This will be a relatively narrow ruling on the constitutionality of a few sections of DC law. That's it. Don't get me wrong, affirming the DC Circuit will be a good start, but overturning anything other than those few sections of DC law will require whole new cases.

Yes, of course a new case would be required to junk 922(o). But it is the next logical thing (after a challenge to various state/local bans), and if this ruling goes our way, I don't see how we can lose. It isn't like there aren't already full autos out there that are fully legal - so the other side will have the "but these guns present an unacceptable menace" argument tossed aside.

I'm not sure that unlicensed CCW in all 50 states will ever occur - because there's a line of case going back to the early 1800's about the power of states and localities to regulate the carrying/wearing of arms. This case is SOLELY about possession/ownership (really the right to "keep") arms, a very different thing.

Rainbows...we got'em already, don't need the USSC. Unicorns...well, OK, so long as there's a reasonable bag limit-those damned horns can be literally a pain in the ....

 

[romma]

I would say if we the people, lose this ruling, coupled with the Kelo decision, we the people will know exactly where we stand in the eyes of our government...

I can hardly call this a nation of free people now, let alone if this decision goes south!

 

[zxcvbob]

Sarah Brady is already asking me for money (and says it is tax deductable) to fight this. Any excuse to ask for money, I guess.

 

[Sam Adams]

Cosmoline

That's actually not at issue in this case. Parts of the DC gun ban are at issue.

You misread - I was answering Woof's contention that in this case the USSC wouldn't "open the door to the legalization of machine guns." Yes, actually the case (if it goes our way) WOULD open the door...and the particular statute at issue WHEN THE DOOR OPENS would be 922(o).

 

[romma]

The worst thing about all of this is that there is nothing we can do except pray. there's no lobbying, not letter writing, no phone calls that will make a difference.

I respectfully disagree.. I believe that if SCOTUS hears the conscious of the people with respect to their God-Given rights to self-defense, then there is a possibility they will think out a more lucid reality based decision...

 

[M_Olson]

so what about the appeal on the standing issue for the other folks that were denied standing earlier? have we heard anything on that?

 

[buzz_knox]

I respectfully disagree.. I believe that if SCOTUS hears the conscious of the people with respect to their God-Given rights to self-defense, then there is a possibility they will think out a more lucid reality based decision...

I hope you aren't suggesting people attempt to write or call the Supremes. Judges really, really don't like hearing from the "people" about how they should vote. They don't respond well to direct pressure at all. Letters to the editor, calls to politicians, fine. Attempts to influence the judiciary will just 1) backfire and 2) get you on lists you really don't want to be on.

 

[Well Regulated]

Quote:
The worst thing about all of this is that there is nothing we can do except pray. there's no lobbying, not letter writing, no phone calls that will make a difference.
I respectfully disagree.. I believe that if SCOTUS hears the conscious of the people with respect to their God-Given rights to self-defense, then there is a possibility they will think out a more lucid reality based decision...

You mean just like the Government did at Lexington and Concord by trying to seize the Powder?

A call to arms is the duty of every American as the only way to preserve the Constitution if the Government fails to do so.

 

[rnr4me]

Did a search for "us constitution'. One result came back with the word "official' as part of the description. So I did some looking on the 'official' government site:

Official Government site

It said

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.

I really don't know what the whole argument is about. Seems pretty clearly stated to me. :banghead:

 

[Cosmoline]

No, don't write them. But we will doubtless see a lot of amicus briefs on this one which is a form of political input.

The worst case scenario is an upholding of the ban, but all this does in effect is toss the whole question back to the politicians where it's been for the past 70 years anyway. It changes very little.

 

[ilbob]

Ask them if the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights (obviously yes), and then ask them if any OTHER part of the Bill of Rights grants purely "collective" rights (again obviously, no). The "collective rights" argument makes NO SENSE AT ALL to anyone who appreciates the environment that the Bill of Rights was written and passed in.

Keep in mind that for the most part the ACLU believes that all rights are collective in nature.

 

[Cosmoline]

Keep in mind that for the most part the ACLU believes that all rights are collective in nature.

?? No they don't. They just ignore the Second for political reasons and to secure their funding from the left.

 

[Jeff White]

I think we need to stop mentioning the militia period.

We need an individual rights ruling. Anything based on the militia would allow congress to make any law they wanted. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

DC has a militia. There is nothing in the law on the unorganized militia saying that DC residents are exempt. DC has an organized militia, several units of both the Army and Air National Guard.

I think that under article 1 section 8 Congress could conceivably write legislation that said the Organized militia shall be armed and equipped with the same weapons and equipment provided to the regular Army and Air Force. The unorganized militia shall be equipped with brooms, shovels and pick axes. and it probably would be constitutional.

We can't argue that Texas, Montana or any other state could over ride such a law because article 1 section 10 says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There are plenty of constitutional ways to regulate the militia. We need to pin our hopes that the court reads: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed literally and that the people means all of us, not the states collectively. Fortunately there are plenty of rulings where a court has decided the people means everyone.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

Keep in mind that for the most part the ACLU believes that all rights are collective in nature.

?? No they don't. They just ignore the Second for political reasons and to secure their funding from the left.

think about it. virtually no cases the ACLU takes up are truly about individual rights. it is generally about the rights of homos, Nazis, blacks, etc., and virtually none of the cases they win ever result in the rights of individuals being protected.

 

[jlpskydive]

3... 2.... 1.... waiting for the EXTREAMLY LIBERAL ONE SIDED MEDIA to start there campaign for the ban to stand. LAIDES and GENTELMEN now is the time WE need to be the LOADEST!!!!! Cause God knows the Brady bunch is pulling out their Bullhorns as we speak!! If you don't think people let the court know how they feel have never been to DC on the Roe vs. Wade anniversary.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well ilbob me boyo, you're misinformed. But to keep the thread from getting closed let's just say that we can expect the ACLU to take a powder on this case as usual. They don't touch the Second.

 

[buzz_knox]

think about it. virtually no cases the ACLU takes up are truly about individual rights. it is generally about the rights of homos, Nazis, blacks, etc., and virtually none of the cases they win ever result in the rights of individuals being protected.

I think you are missing a critical fact here. While the ACLU (and I'm the first one to be discussed by its intellectual dishonesty and race to destroy everything it disagrees with) represented members of those groups, the ACLU was dealing with the rights possessed individually by the members of the groups.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I think we need to stop mentioning the militia period.

Impossible.

We need an individual rights ruling.

Or something equivalent....

I think that under article 1 section 8 Congress could conceivably write legislation that said the Organized militia shall be armed and equipped with the same weapons and equipment provided to the regular Army and Air Force. The unorganized militia shall be equipped with brooms, shovels and pick axes. and it probably would be constitutional.

Nope.

We can't argue that Texas, Montana or any other state could over ride such a law because article 1 section 10 says:

Do not confuse regular troops which are prohibited to the states, to the militia which the states are specifically allowed.

There are plenty of constitutional ways to regulate the militia.

Registration and licensing would be examples which would not be welcome, but could be justified under the militia clause of Article I.

 

[Cosmoline]

I agree with Jeff. The militia angle is a loser for us and always has been. As soon as you start talking about the militia you're talking about a group organized and defined by the government. A group right, in other words. You can find old statutes that tell us every man (or every person in some cases) over 18 and under 45 is a member of the unorganized militia, but nothing prevents the legislature from just repealing these things if the Second is interpreted within that context. A right that belongs to everyone in general belongs to nobody in particular.

The "militia" clause of the second is mere preamble and should be relegated to that role. It explains some of the Founder's reasoning, but should not have force of law. In other words my RKBA should not depend on my membership in a formal or informal militia under state or federal statute.