Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The following is an article quoted from Yahoo News Service on the Washington DC appeal of the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court.

It is posted it in the Gun Control forum also.

Jim

"WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states - Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York - are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
Anytime you rely on a court to "clarify" an issue, you had better hold onto your hat, this could be a bumpy ride. While the present Supreme Court is viewed as being more conservative that at other times, Second Amendment rulings seem to elicit some strange interpretations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,797 Posts
The good thing I see coming out of this media coverage is the question that I hope will come to at least some anti-gun person's mind-Why, since D.C. has a handgun ban in place do they have one of the very highest murder rates per capita of any city in the WORLD? Maybe it will make at least some of them think. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Just us dumb law abiding citizens! I can't help wondering if we will be able to wake up our legislators before it's too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
There was an article in the Metro section of the Wash. Post this am which questioned the effectiveness of the DC gun laws. I basically said that the murder rate went up and down whether there were gun laws or not.

It also said that there were fewer registered guns in DC now than there were in 1976 when the current statute went into effect.

That underlines the fact that if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
A quote from the DC district attorney...

...Second, the brief observes that the amendment was drafted as a limitation on the authority of the federal government, not of the states, and that even if the District of Columbia is considered the equivalent of a state, "legislation limited to the District can pose no threat to the interests the Second Amendment was enacted to protect."
Why don't we just throw out the constitution and let each state decide if its residents have any rights or not. Maybe that ape in Califronia doesn't want people saying anything bad about him so he just negates the first amendment saying it's only to protect the people from the FEDERAL GOVT? Dosen't apply at the state level.

Man if this idiot kook from DC gets her way we are in BIG trouble. :(^
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
That's actually an interesting, though invalid, argument presented by the DC DA. Historically it is true that the Bill of Rights was intended ONLY as a guarantee of rights against intrusions by the federal government. HOWEVER, it is long since past a forgone conclusion and general knowledge that through the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution that the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated" against the states--meaning that a state may not abridge any of those rights, just as the federal government may not. This is the current state of jurisprudence as regards the scope and effect of the Bill of Rights.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Here's the current status of the case: we don't know. Today was the first opportunity the Court could have announced whether or not it will hear the case. It chose not to. The next possible likely opportunities the Court could announce whether or not it will hear the case are Tuesday 20 Nov when the Court has another conference or Monday 26 Nov when orders from that conference are most likely to issue.

See also
SCOTUSblog said:
Court takes no action on gun case
Lyle Denniston
Today, 08:02 AM
Update 1:19 p.m.

Update 10:44 a.m.

Update 10:21 a.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment - an issue the Court has not considered in 68 years. The Orders List contained no mention of either the District of Columbia's appeal (07-290) or a cross-petition by challengers to the city's flat ban on private possession of handguns (07-335). The next date for possible action on these cases is likely to come after the Court's pre-Thanksgiving Conference - either on the day of the Conference, Nov. 20, or the following Monday, Nov. 26.

The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review - especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment's meaning - that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one's home - and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer as to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference.
Available at

feed://feeds.feedburner.com/scotusblog/pFXs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
What I find interesting is the NRA's reaction to this case. Now this is just my observations so don't go blowing your corks but what I see is the NRA tried to get this case dismissed. Why maybe the timing wasn't right and they didn't initiate it.??? Next they tried to join the case on the plaintiff's side and the lawyers for the plaintiff fought them and the judge would not allow them to join. The fear was the NRA would subvert the case...killing it. Now wait there's more. The NRA definitely does not want the case to go to the Supreme Court because there is a chance and a good one that SCOTUS will agree with the lower court ruling on the second amendment that insures an INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms... period. What effect would that have? Maybe most of the draconian gun laws in place would be null and void because most states that have anti gun laws limit the right of its citizens to have certain weapons or any weapons at all. A state can only limit where one can carry that weapon not just the mere possession of it.

So what's this whole tirade about??? The NRA has made a fortune and continues to make a fortune and bases it very existance on the fact that the anti gun crowd is trying to destroy the second ammendment. If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd is an individual, inviolate right the antis are sunk and the NRA will have to go back to sponsoring shooting matches and Wayne La Pierre will have to change his doom and gloom reporting. :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Don't be such a negative conspiracy theorist. Seriously.

NRA doesn't want this to go to SCOTUS because there is the possibility that the Court will overturn the lower court, validating DC's gun ban and basically ending private gun ownership as we know it in this country.

THAT'S the problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
This is actually a critical issue precisely BECAUSE of what may happen at the Court. Being the Court, it can choose to do basically whatever it wants, so long as it can satisfy its own need for sufficient reasoning. What we WANT to come of it is a screaming vindication of private gun ownership as an inalienable right under the 2d amendment. We could get the opposite and we might get something in between. The Court has historically be known to split issues very selectively to avoid addressing hugely volatile questions if it feels like doing so. I do have confidence in the present Court, however, and I am glad that it is this Court and not the Court of even a couple of years ago that has the opportunity to hear this case.

Of course, they could just deny to hear the case as well, which could be taken as a vindication of our position. That would be good, but not as good as actually deciding the case in our favor.

Wait and see....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,922 Posts
If the NRA "wins" they will be like the March of Dimes and have to scurry to find a new way to continue the big salaries. They would have to turn back into an organization that promotes the shooting sports, gun safety, education, blah, blah. Is there as much money in that? If they lose they will be rolling in $$$ from people like us who will answer the panic call to joins the fight. Of course I'm cynical, but doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
The correct interpretation to me is as plain as the nose on your face. As someone once said, if the second amendment was just about forming a militia, it wouldn't have been the SECOND amendment right behind freedom of speech, however, I once saw an interview with Robert Bork, considered a bastion of strict interpretation, in which he said he was not so sure that it meant an individual right. That's worrisome coming from Bork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,922 Posts
Shootshellz said:
tpaul: Actually, you are both cynical and wrong.
Feel free to clarify. You won't, but feel free to try.

The first thing you can explain is what the scenario will be if the Supreme Court rules in our favor. Why will we still need the lobbyists$$$

If we lose which one of you won't send them money to fight the slew of lawsuits that will arise when the other side gets even more bold? How will they pay the lobbyists needed to get the Constitution amended??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,550 Posts
Do you guys think that even if the supreme court rules that the 2nd is a individual right, That the Antis are just going to give up???????

Come on you all know better, it will just make them try even harder to "get Around" the 2nd!!!!

The NRA will never "be out of Business" There will always be Antis out there.

Mike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,272 Posts
tpaul said:
Shootshellz said:
tpaul: Actually, you are both cynical and wrong.
Feel free to clarify. You won't, but feel free to try.

The first thing you can explain is what the scenario will be if the Supreme Court rules in our favor. Why will we still need the lobbyists$$$

If we lose which one of you won't send them money to fight the slew of lawsuits that will arise when the other side gets even more bold? How will they pay the lobbyists needed to get the Constitution amended??
I will explain why your view is cynical and wrong.

First, you said "If the NRA "wins" they will be like the March of Dimes and have to scurry to find a new way to continue the big salaries." Do you know who the NRA is? It's not some private profit making corporation. It's an organization of nearly 4 million like-minded individuals. I'm the NRA. Also we (aka "the NRA") must compete in the "real-world" for leadership talent sufficient to manage and control an organization of this size. Compare NRA executive compensation with executives from corporations of similar size and you'll see the "big salaries" are not so big. I guess we could offer compensation more in line with US government SES compensation of around $200k, but then you get what you pay for.

Wayne LaPierre NRA, $895,897
Patrick T. Stokes, Anheuser-Busch CEO $6,536,687
Andrea Jung, Avon Products CEO, $13,320,565
Dennis Highby, Cabela's Incorporated CEO, $2,880,039

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/pa ... tabase.cfm

Next you said "They would have to turn back into an organization that promotes the shooting sports, gun safety, education, blah, blah. Is there as much money in that?" This is cynical and wrong in two ways. First, we are an organization that continues to promote "shooting sports, gun safety, education, blah, blah" as well as the second amendment. Second there is no profit in anything we do. The NRA is not a profit seeking organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,922 Posts
DEG said:
tpaul said:
Shootshellz said:
tpaul: Actually, you are both cynical and wrong.
Feel free to clarify. You won't, but feel free to try.

The first thing you can explain is what the scenario will be if the Supreme Court rules in our favor. Why will we still need the lobbyists$$$

If we lose which one of you won't send them money to fight the slew of lawsuits that will arise when the other side gets even more bold? How will they pay the lobbyists needed to get the Constitution amended??
I will explain why your view is cynical and wrong.

First, you said "If the NRA "wins" they will be like the March of Dimes and have to scurry to find a new way to continue the big salaries." Do you know who the NRA is? It's not some private profit making corporation. It's an organization of nearly 4 million like-minded individuals. I'm the NRA. Also we (aka "the NRA") must compete in the "real-world" for leadership talent sufficient to manage and control an organization of this size. Compare NRA executive compensation with executives from corporations of similar size and you'll see the "big salaries" are not so big. I guess we could offer compensation more in line with US government SES compensation of around $200k, but then you get what you pay for.

Wayne LaPierre NRA, $895,897
Patrick T. Stokes, Anheuser-Busch CEO $6,536,687
Andrea Jung, Avon Products CEO, $13,320,565
Dennis Highby, Cabela's Incorporated CEO, $2,880,039

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/pa ... tabase.cfm

Next you said "They would have to turn back into an organization that promotes the shooting sports, gun safety, education, blah, blah. Is there as much money in that?" This is cynical and wrong in two ways. First, we are an organization that continues to promote "shooting sports, gun safety, education, blah, blah" as well as the second amendment. Second there is no profit in anything we do. The NRA is not a profit seeking organization.
But he lobbyists that "love" the NRA are. I don't need a quote from their brochures It's an organization that is actually run by a few and Pierre isn't necessariliy the top of the totem pole. The rest of us are contributors. You need to look into how much money goes to the lobbyists. That's where the $$$$ are. The gun safety training and shooting training and other shooting programs are what we provide. The NRA provides a little patch that says we paid them for the training we got. I've never charged anyone else a dime for the training I give. The NRA does give a lot of money to those sorts of programs but it ain't the kind of $$$ that goes to the lobbyists.

If the Supreme Court gives a clear decision I won't need the NRA lobbying for me at the level they do now. Even stupid lawyers can win when they have Supreme Court decisiions to back them up. The antis will have to load the court and get them to overturn old decisions or get the Constitution changed. How many lobbysists do we need to stop that? The NeoCon machine has proven that even if your desire is to get into the business of individuals and states by amending the Constitution that is actually quite difficult to do. So where are those high $$$ lobbyists going to go?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top