Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia) - Page 12

Socrates · July 10, 2008, 10:08 PM

Don't know enough about filing injunctions in Federal court.
If Heller is denied registration for a Browning Hi-Power, rather then being arrested to get standing, perhaps he could file an injunction against the District, that instructs the district to register his BHP?

Anyone know the steps in filing an injunction in Federal court, against a governmental body?

HarrySchell · July 11, 2008, 04:30 PM

I have to agree with much of this:

D.C. v. Heller: It's not about Guns, It's About Self-Governance, Safer Streets.
By John Longenecker (07/10/08)

There is no such thing as a sensible gun law, and gun bans are a fake-out fraud and abuse of power. Unwind Gun Bans and you begin to unwind other abuses so adverse to Family and Liberty.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution was made absolute for several reasons. In fact, the Second Amendment wasn't even written for citizens.

I get a predictable reaction when I say this, but follow-up clears it all up. Gun control is a European concept totally inappropriate for the Founders who escaped that kind of thinking at the nation's inception.

Let's call it for what it is: Gun Bans are a fraud of window dressing and control. Gun bans are a fake-out and abuse of power backed by official Force, and the Supreme Court just struck down a fake-out and abuse of power.

Maybe the time for faking out the People is coming to an end on various levels. Where the peccadillo of abusing powers might have been countered by further citizen political involvement and personal critical thinking eventually, it was immensely facilitated by the D.C. v. Heller win which can now begin to reveal just how gun control is related to a host of other policies which frustrate and vex the American family.

This is why I oppose gun control so. It Is Not About Guns: It is a model for the further interference with all aspects of our society - all aspects - and goes now beyond the Nanny State into a condition of a deeper dependency on officials. This is what is meant by liberty nuts when they say that it's not about controlling guns, it's about control, period.

A dangerous movement is afoot: We were passing the Nanny State and moving into a coerced dependency on officials who are no longer satisfied with looking after us cradle to grave - no matter what their intentions - now looking to forcing it on us so that we have no choice but to depend on them for food, fuel and more - all of it allegedly for fighting crime. But is this where crime is fought? No, it is not.

By banning the gun bans, D.C. v. Heller just might reverse the direction of this kind of nightmare of removing you from head of household, only to replace you with official drones as they do now in parenting, electronic surveillance, etc.

I like safer streets, and many of the Safe Streets Programs set out in the right direction, but do not travel far. Some strive for specific minor goals. Others were never funded. People dropped out as their websites dropped off the radar. Safe streets needs a lift, in my opinion, because it is an attainable objective. It can be done. It can be done because freedom can protect itself – if bureaucrats will get the Hell out of the way. And where freedom can protect itself, there is little need for Nanny. Hence, gun control in a need to be needed.

Let's get back to for whom the Constitution was written, that part about not being written for citizens, but being written for officials: Like most of the Constitution, it was written on the belief that human rights, personal dignity and Independence predate any document (including our own), that governments do not grant those rights, but that officials as servants are charged with the duty to recognize and protect them, and that severe limits are imposed on officials as part of their job. Nearly all of the Document is guidelines and Limits on Officials.

The D.C. ruling affirms this by slapping down the gun ban for the D.C.'s third time now, and applying to perhaps the major cities, too, who have followed the D.C. model.

The significance of the D.C. v. Heller ruling isn't that it will ban bans, but furnishes the authority for challenging them, and brother, they're going to be challenged by the liberty foundations. We wish them the very best. For us all.

[Not only will gun bans not touch thugs who use guns, but bans have been a proven formula for cloning into other areas of messing with our society. Unwind gun bans, and you can begin to reverse all sorts of adverse programs that have been hurting families, workplace and personal judgment and freedom.]

Not only can we look forward to safer streets in meeting community violence with authority, but we may even look forward to a return to our freedoms once Americans begin to see the connection between gun control and all other interferences with our free self-rule society.

Congratulations to the Team in good lawyering in this win. Congratulations. Well done.

And for all who challenge gun bans nationwide in the public interest, I have two words for you: Good Hunting.

It would be good for the country.

Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns [June, 2008] AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

Socrates · July 11, 2008, 05:57 PM

I think if you look at the article Jim March posted for editing on the 2nd amendment, and the Incorporationist Doctrine, you'll find your position STRONGLY supported by historical court rulings.

alan · July 11, 2008, 10:17 PM

I found the post by Harry Schell most interesting, worth reading. Others, having read the same, might agree.

Socrates:

Would you please provide a link or indicate where Jim March's comments, on Incorporation that you reference might be found. Thanks.

Socrates · July 11, 2008, 10:46 PM

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=301054

Al Norris · July 11, 2008, 11:33 PM

The article that Harry posted can be found here.

Tennessee Gentleman · July 11, 2008, 11:44 PM

If this has already been posted then I apologize. Here is a link to a speech Alan Gura gave to the City Club of Cleveland on YouTube. The Q&A that follows was very helpful to me understanding some of the issues about Heller and the applications of that decision. Alsn also talks about where the cases will likely go next. This is the first link just follow the other parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpemu...eature=related

This speech was gven this week I think.

Socrates · July 12, 2008, 02:57 AM

..

alan · July 12, 2008, 03:52 PM

Re D.C. v. Heller, people might find the following of interest. http://reason.com/news/show/127292.html

By the way, Reason has a number of articles that involve gun rights, which readers might also find interesting

rwilson452 · July 14, 2008, 06:26 AM

I'm not a lawyer. I suspect if Scalia get his way in some years down the road. bans will be gone including the hateful ban on the introduction of new full auto types into the civilian market. You will still need to go the way it is now but be more of a shall issue arrangement. I suspect carry permits will also become shall issue. As to whether open carry will not require some form of permit, my crystal ball is still cloudy on that issue. I do think this is going to take several more trips to SCOTUS

Torontogunguy · July 14, 2008, 09:14 AM

Every gun owner in the nation needs to get our and cast their vote.

Notice how close the Heller vote went?

Now imagine that Obama is made KING. He appoints a couple of Obama friends to the SCOTUS.

The 2A is challenged again in whatever way they can get it to the SCOTUS.

What's the result this time around? God help us. The King just got his way. No guns. Period.

Get out and vote. I am not entirely happy with the choices before me, but at least I know what I have with the competition.

TimRB · July 14, 2008, 09:40 AM

"Now imagine that Obama is made KING. He appoints a couple of Obama friends to the SCOTUS."

TGG, I agree with you 100 percent about voting, and also making careful note of how close the vote was this time. I didn't know I could hold my breath for weeks at a time.

That said, though, I think we should not panic about the possibility that Obama will get elected and appoint some new Supreme Court justices. Most Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices most likely to leave the court soon are hyperliberal ones anyway (like Stevens), so Obama's appointments would not affect the balance of the court so much.

By the same token, let's NOT relax, though. There's much more work to do.

Tim

jimpeel · July 15, 2008, 09:47 PM

David Kopel was making the rounds of many of the pro-firearms radio talk shows after Heller. Here are the links:

Mike Rosen 850 KOA AM (Denver) First hour Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com

Mike Rosen 850 KOA AM (Denver) Second hour Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com

Down Range Radio Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Not a very well organized site ( http://www.downrange.tv ) so finding the file to download is not easy.

Metro News Outdoors Click the audio link. Does not appear to be downloadable.

Jon Caldera 850 KOA AM (Denver) Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com

Jon Caldera podcast link http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast206.mp3

Caplis and Silverman 630 KHOW AM (Denver) Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.khow.com

jimpeel · July 15, 2008, 09:52 PM

Another article from Reason Magazine

http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html

Quote:

The Second Amendment Goes to Court
Civil libertarians respond to D.C. v. Heller

Jacob Sullum, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Randy Barnett, Alan Gura, Brian Doherty, David B. Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Sanford Levinson | June 27, 2008

Contains statements from all of the above.

Socrates · July 17, 2008, 12:46 PM

Deleted for happy moderator;-)

Al Norris · July 17, 2008, 01:05 PM

Socrates, two other members posted two threads at the same time, before your post.

Soo... I'm gonna merge their threads and folks, Let's direct all comments to the "Heller 2.0" thread.

This one is about what the initial Heller decision says or does.

alan · July 17, 2008, 10:18 PM

jimpeel wrote:

Another article from Reason Magazine

http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html

Quote:
The Second Amendment Goes to Court
Civil libertarians respond to D.C. v. Heller

Jacob Sullum, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Randy Barnett, Alan Gura, Brian Doherty, David B. Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Sanford Levinson | June 27, 2008

Contains statements from all of the above.

-----------------------

If one goes to Reason.com, interested parties will there find a lengthy archive of gun rights, mostly if not all pro gun rights articles, going back a number of years.

All:

Additionally, for whatever it might be worth, my wife, who is currently reading The Nine, Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin found the following regarding Justice Scalia, which might or might not have a bearing on his thinking re D.C. v. Heller. See page 200, where one finds reference to Scalia having been on his High Schol Rifle Team, "commuting on the New York subway system with a .22 carbine". Seems that Justice Scalia, later in life, was also an active hunter.

As I mentioned above, the foregoing might or might not have anything to do with the justices thinking on gun related legal matters, however who knows.

July 11, 2008, 04:30 PM	#277
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	John Longnecker-Heeler is not about Guns I have to agree with much of this: D.C. v. Heller: It's not about Guns, It's About Self-Governance, Safer Streets. By John Longenecker (07/10/08) There is no such thing as a sensible gun law, and gun bans are a fake-out fraud and abuse of power. Unwind Gun Bans and you begin to unwind other abuses so adverse to Family and Liberty. The Second Amendment to our Constitution was made absolute for several reasons. In fact, the Second Amendment wasn't even written for citizens. I get a predictable reaction when I say this, but follow-up clears it all up. Gun control is a European concept totally inappropriate for the Founders who escaped that kind of thinking at the nation's inception. Let's call it for what it is: Gun Bans are a fraud of window dressing and control. Gun bans are a fake-out and abuse of power backed by official Force, and the Supreme Court just struck down a fake-out and abuse of power. Maybe the time for faking out the People is coming to an end on various levels. Where the peccadillo of abusing powers might have been countered by further citizen political involvement and personal critical thinking eventually, it was immensely facilitated by the D.C. v. Heller win which can now begin to reveal just how gun control is related to a host of other policies which frustrate and vex the American family. This is why I oppose gun control so. It Is Not About Guns: It is a model for the further interference with all aspects of our society - all aspects - and goes now beyond the Nanny State into a condition of a deeper dependency on officials. This is what is meant by liberty nuts when they say that it's not about controlling guns, it's about control, period. A dangerous movement is afoot: We were passing the Nanny State and moving into a coerced dependency on officials who are no longer satisfied with looking after us cradle to grave - no matter what their intentions - now looking to forcing it on us so that we have no choice but to depend on them for food, fuel and more - all of it allegedly for fighting crime. But is this where crime is fought? No, it is not. By banning the gun bans, D.C. v. Heller just might reverse the direction of this kind of nightmare of removing you from head of household, only to replace you with official drones as they do now in parenting, electronic surveillance, etc. I like safer streets, and many of the Safe Streets Programs set out in the right direction, but do not travel far. Some strive for specific minor goals. Others were never funded. People dropped out as their websites dropped off the radar. Safe streets needs a lift, in my opinion, because it is an attainable objective. It can be done. It can be done because freedom can protect itself – if bureaucrats will get the Hell out of the way. And where freedom can protect itself, there is little need for Nanny. Hence, gun control in a need to be needed. Let's get back to for whom the Constitution was written, that part about not being written for citizens, but being written for officials: Like most of the Constitution, it was written on the belief that human rights, personal dignity and Independence predate any document (including our own), that governments do not grant those rights, but that officials as servants are charged with the duty to recognize and protect them, and that severe limits are imposed on officials as part of their job. Nearly all of the Document is guidelines and Limits on Officials. The D.C. ruling affirms this by slapping down the gun ban for the D.C.'s third time now, and applying to perhaps the major cities, too, who have followed the D.C. model. The significance of the D.C. v. Heller ruling isn't that it will ban bans, but furnishes the authority for challenging them, and brother, they're going to be challenged by the liberty foundations. We wish them the very best. For us all. [Not only will gun bans not touch thugs who use guns, but bans have been a proven formula for cloning into other areas of messing with our society. Unwind gun bans, and you can begin to reverse all sorts of adverse programs that have been hurting families, workplace and personal judgment and freedom.] Not only can we look forward to safer streets in meeting community violence with authority, but we may even look forward to a return to our freedoms once Americans begin to see the connection between gun control and all other interferences with our free self-rule society. Congratulations to the Team in good lawyering in this win. Congratulations. Well done. And for all who challenge gun bans nationwide in the public interest, I have two words for you: Good Hunting. It would be good for the country. Longenecker is author of Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns [June, 2008] AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

July 11, 2008, 11:44 PM	#282
Tennessee Gentleman Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,775	If this has already been posted then I apologize. Here is a link to a speech Alan Gura gave to the City Club of Cleveland on YouTube. The Q&A that follows was very helpful to me understanding some of the issues about Heller and the applications of that decision. Alsn also talks about where the cases will likely go next. This is the first link just follow the other parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpemu...eature=related This speech was gven this week I think. __________________ "God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier.

July 12, 2008, 02:57 AM	#283
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	.. Last edited by Socrates; July 12, 2008 at 02:59 AM. Reason: old info

July 14, 2008, 06:26 AM	#285
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	Down the road from Heller I'm not a lawyer. I suspect if Scalia get his way in some years down the road. bans will be gone including the hateful ban on the introduction of new full auto types into the civilian market. You will still need to go the way it is now but be more of a shall issue arrangement. I suspect carry permits will also become shall issue. As to whether open carry will not require some form of permit, my crystal ball is still cloudy on that issue. I do think this is going to take several more trips to SCOTUS

July 15, 2008, 09:47 PM	#288
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	David Kopel was making the rounds of many of the pro-firearms radio talk shows after Heller. Here are the links: Mike Rosen 850 KOA AM (Denver) First hour Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com Mike Rosen 850 KOA AM (Denver) Second hour Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com Down Range Radio Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Not a very well organized site ( http://www.downrange.tv ) so finding the file to download is not easy. Metro News Outdoors Click the audio link. Does not appear to be downloadable. Jon Caldera 850 KOA AM (Denver) Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.850koa.com Jon Caldera podcast link http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast206.mp3 Caplis and Silverman 630 KHOW AM (Denver) Quicktime format. Takes a while to load. Downloadable at http://www.khow.com __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

July 10, 2008, 10:08 PM	#276
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	Don't know enough about filing injunctions in Federal court. If Heller is denied registration for a Browning Hi-Power, rather then being arrested to get standing, perhaps he could file an injunction against the District, that instructs the district to register his BHP? Anyone know the steps in filing an injunction in Federal court, against a governmental body?

July 11, 2008, 05:57 PM	#278
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	I think if you look at the article Jim March posted for editing on the 2nd amendment, and the Incorporationist Doctrine, you'll find your position STRONGLY supported by historical court rulings.

July 11, 2008, 10:17 PM	#279
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	I found the post by Harry Schell most interesting, worth reading. Others, having read the same, might agree. Socrates: Would you please provide a link or indicate where Jim March's comments, on Incorporation that you reference might be found. Thanks.

July 11, 2008, 10:46 PM	#280
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=301054

July 11, 2008, 11:33 PM	#281
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	The article that Harry posted can be found here.

July 12, 2008, 03:52 PM	#284
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Re D.C. v. Heller, people might find the following of interest. http://reason.com/news/show/127292.html By the way, Reason has a number of articles that involve gun rights, which readers might also find interesting

July 14, 2008, 09:14 AM	#286
Torontogunguy Member Join Date: October 1, 2007 Location: Buffalo NY/Toronto ON Posts: 30	Every gun owner in the nation needs to get our and cast their vote. Notice how close the Heller vote went? Now imagine that Obama is made KING. He appoints a couple of Obama friends to the SCOTUS. The 2A is challenged again in whatever way they can get it to the SCOTUS. What's the result this time around? God help us. The King just got his way. No guns. Period. Get out and vote. I am not entirely happy with the choices before me, but at least I know what I have with the competition.

July 14, 2008, 09:40 AM	#287
TimRB Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Posts: 1,049	"Now imagine that Obama is made KING. He appoints a couple of Obama friends to the SCOTUS." TGG, I agree with you 100 percent about voting, and also making careful note of how close the vote was this time. I didn't know I could hold my breath for weeks at a time. That said, though, I think we should not panic about the possibility that Obama will get elected and appoint some new Supreme Court justices. Most Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices most likely to leave the court soon are hyperliberal ones anyway (like Stevens), so Obama's appointments would not affect the balance of the court so much. By the same token, let's NOT relax, though. There's much more work to do. Tim

July 17, 2008, 12:46 PM	#290
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	Deleted for happy moderator;-)

July 17, 2008, 01:05 PM	#291
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Socrates, two other members posted two threads at the same time, before your post. Soo... I'm gonna merge their threads and folks, Let's direct all comments to the "Heller 2.0" thread. This one is about what the initial Heller decision says or does.

July 17, 2008, 10:18 PM	#292
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	jimpeel wrote: Another article from Reason Magazine http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html Quote: The Second Amendment Goes to Court Civil libertarians respond to D.C. v. Heller Jacob Sullum, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Randy Barnett, Alan Gura, Brian Doherty, David B. Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Sanford Levinson \| June 27, 2008 Contains statements from all of the above. ----------------------- If one goes to Reason.com, interested parties will there find a lengthy archive of gun rights, mostly if not all pro gun rights articles, going back a number of years. All: Additionally, for whatever it might be worth, my wife, who is currently reading The Nine, Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin found the following regarding Justice Scalia, which might or might not have a bearing on his thinking re D.C. v. Heller. See page 200, where one finds reference to Scalia having been on his High Schol Rifle Team, "commuting on the New York subway system with a .22 carbine". Seems that Justice Scalia, later in life, was also an active hunter. As I mentioned above, the foregoing might or might not have anything to do with the justices thinking on gun related legal matters, however who knows.