The Brady Folks think Judge Roberts needs a 2A lesson.

[bg]

The enemy sees the Judge needing a tune-up. What do you think regarding
their pc ? >
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=681

Actually, virtually every federal appeals court has decided this issue and only one, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, has endorsed the individual rights view. Since the Emerson opinion in 2001 (which was joined by only two circuit court judges and actually upheld the gun law at issue), the individual rights view has been rejected by the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits. The First, Second, Third and Eighth Circuits also have issued definitive rulings rejecting the individual rights view. Judge Roberts managed to avoid mentioning this remarkable degree of judicial consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[publius]

Uh oh... I sense a civil asset forfeiture case...

U.S. v. Twenty-Two Various Firearms, 38 Fed.Appx. 229 (6th Cir. 2002)

How could that case even bring up the 2nd, much less as an individual or collective right? The defendant is not a citizen. This is one of those cases where they don't have enough evidence to convict an actual person, so they're using the weaker civil standards to charge his property with a crime and seize it. It's a neat little drug warrior trick to get around criminal asset forfeiture laws.

But if your guns have been charged with a crime, you can't assert that they have 2nd amendment protection. Seems to me a claim based on takings without due process would be more appropriate, but the drug warriors have pretty well done away with that one.

 

[publius]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182219

Also under discussion there ^

I'm not familiar with any of those other cases. If I had the time, I could go through them and see, but I suspect they are just a list of cases which in some way reference and uphold the Miller decision.

Regarding Miller, the Brady Bunch says:

Actually, in Miller, the Supreme Court wrote that the “obvious purpose” of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of state militias and that the guarantee of that right “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” What could be a clearer rejection of the individual rights view?

And in order “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of militias (not state militias...militias, as in Minutemen...remember those?) what did our Founders want to do?

Federalist 29 gives the answer:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

That's right. Hamilton had in mind turning out every citizen capable of fighting twice a year to ensure that EACH BROUGHT AND COULD USE A WORKING FIREARM OF HIS OWN, APPROPRIATE FOR MILITIA USE.

Each. His own. As in INDIVIDUAL. What would be appropriate for militia use? Will it kill a soldier? It's appropriate.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The Bradys intentional misreading of Miller is one of their linchpins, and I'm certain that a Justice who has actually read Miller frightens their pants into condition brown.

The various circuit decisions that they reference are their strong hand.

It is these improperly decided cases, coupled with SCOTUS declining to review, that constitute the core of judicial nullification of 2A, and is one of the very few legs they have to stand on.

I'm not familiar with them all, but some do in fact explicitly reject 2A as an individual right. If I'm not mistaken, MOST of these cases are refusals to apply 2A to some state law or another.

Some of them are along the lines of "Citizens can have arms under arduous situation Z, therefore RKBA is not infringed."

Others take the view that the infringement at hand falls under the states power to police and regulate, which takes an expansive view of the term "to regulate", which means "to make regular", and not "to prohibit or obstruct with legislation bearing the word regulation in the title."

One of these days, I'm going to have to study up on the various circuit holdings.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I doubt Brady has anything to worry about from Roberts. I suspect he will capitulate soon enough, and march right along with the rest of the antis in Washington. I have no faith that Bush would nominate someone who would actually remain pro-2nd amendment. It would be nice to be wrong for once, though.

 

[dolanp]

I sometimes wonder who it is they are really trying to convince. I'll bet more firearms enthusiasts with an eye on the enemy read these press releases than the soccer mom blissninnies who they target.

 

[Crosshair]

Note to self: If I ever get a time machine, go back and get Miller to defend his case.

 

[buzz_knox]

Note to self: If I ever get a time machine, go back and get Miller to defend his case.

I was under the impression that his lack of a defense was due to his having died in the interim.

 

[DonP]

I think you're right

"I'll bet more firearms enthusiasts with an eye on the enemy read these press releases than the soccer mom blissninnies who they target."

I think you're dead on the money.

I keep track of the MMM Meetup boards and they finally closed all their city boards but one. Even here, in Daley loving Chicago, they couldn't get a single Meet up going after two years of trying, even in Uber-Liberal Oak Park. The national board has only five regular posters. Two of us are shooters and one, who calls herself "Mother Bear", I think is Brady herself. Man, that is just pathetic.

Heck, I could start a "Left Handed Shooters of WW II Right Handed Bolt Action Rifles" board and turn out more interested people.

They have to be surviving on their big donor contributions from people like Soros and McKelvey. Their dues paying membership rolls have to be in the crapper. Their big anniversary march "Million" Mom March on Washington last year turned out maybe 2,000 people and no news coverage. Their "Big Pink Bus" tour was scrapped after the few cities they did visit couldn't even turn out 20 or 30 people.

It must be depressing to have to count on another gun related crime of monumental proportions to cheer you up.

 

[boofus]

Unbelievable. The actual shooter that turned Jim Brady into a vegetable and wounded President Reagan is trying to get unsupervised vacation for up to 7 days from detention and that brady witch doesn't make a noise about it.

Instead she focuses her energy on attacking a possible pro-2A judicial nominee and gun owners.

The punishment law-abiding gun owners have to endure will last longer than Hinckley's punishment.

Anyone else feel sort of like a German Jew in the 1930s?

 

[publius]

I was under the impression that his lack of a defense was due to his having died in the interim.

That's a slightly better excuse than "the dog ate my brief in this case." What a crybaby! Can't even show up, just because he's dead!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I was under the impression that he didn't show up because he disappeared in the mountains for fear of being sent back to jail if his side lost the appeal. That's the story told in UC anyway.

 

[NCP24]

At least Judge Roberts left out the following US Supreme Court Rulings.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'll bet more firearms enthusiasts with an eye on the enemy read these press releases than the soccer mom blissninnies who they target.

You're probably right. On the proverbial "bright side," I doubt we send much in the way of contributions.