June 29, 2010, 08:28 PM | #126 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
You (we all) have to stop restricting out thinking of "arms" to "firearms". I don't think that there are ANY "normal" firearms that should be banned/illegal. What about an F22 Raptor? TOE anti-tank missile? Nuclear Bomb? See? Those are reasonable restrictions. If I can own a 10 round 9mm pistol, with 90 ten round magazines, then why can't I own a 100 round pistol? Makes no sense. That restriction is not reasonable. If I can own a gun that holds 30 rounds and will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger then why not full-auto? In most cases, an active shooter with a full auto would likely do LESS damage than the same shooter with a semi. There's simply no compelling reason for drawing this distinction. The AWB... why is a rifle with a wooden stock and iron sights legal but the EXACT same gun with an EEEEvil black plastic stock and pistol grip illegal? No good reason. Logic people can tell the difference.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 29, 2010, 08:44 PM | #127 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 29, 2010, 10:11 PM | #128 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
June 29, 2010, 10:16 PM | #129 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Was there really ever any doubt about Sotomayer?
I actually find myself agreeing, probably for the first time ever, with Diane Feinstein when she said that we can really never know about a judge until they're seated. She exactly right.... but in todays world, we can pretty well assume that they're going to follow the inclinations of the appointer. 15, 20, 30 years ago, that was slightly less likely, today, I'd say it's all but guaranteed. Sotomayer is likely to vote what amounts to straight down party lines, and Kagan will do the same. I'm just glad that neither of them represents a shift in the court. A lost chance for an entire generation or even two, but not shift.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 30, 2010, 01:26 AM | #130 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television. American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them. |
|
June 30, 2010, 08:49 AM | #131 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Souter is from 20 years ago.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 30, 2010, 10:08 AM | #132 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
I gave her the benefit of the doubt in the Maloney decision, since, as the 7th Circuit observed, incorporation would have violated precedent. Essentially, the issue was above the Circuit courts' pay grade. However, the 2A is obviously a very party-line issue, as you mentioned. I was obviously wrong about her.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 30, 2010, 10:08 AM | #133 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Moved from my closed thread
McDonald and Pending Court Cases
OK, we got the McDonald v Chicago ruling we were hoping for. Maybe not by the margin wanted, but a win is a win in my book. So here's my question: With the decision made, what happens to the pending cases in California, the 9th Circuit Court and elsewhere that have been waiting for SCOTUS to rule? I seem to recall reading about numerous cases all sitting around waiting for this day. Is there a mountain of paperwork being filed? Are lawyers lining up at court houses to see if they can get other gun laws looked at by the courts? What about the decision that the 9th Circuit has on hold? Any ideas when that will get revisited? Moved here due to inclusion of the pending cases in this "mega thread"
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
June 30, 2010, 10:10 AM | #134 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
What about colleges?
This is from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. today - http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-...&utm_medium=en. The link probably won't work without a subscription.
The gist is that McD won't be the golden key to campus carry. That will have to be accomplished by legislative action in each state. The opposition to such comes from 1. Antigunners on the left 2. So called conservative business types who feel that such a ruling might weaken their case for maintaining bans on private property - which they support not for so-called private property liberty issues but the hypocritical issue of liability. Here's the piece. Quote:
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
June 30, 2010, 10:15 AM | #135 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
|
|
June 30, 2010, 10:22 AM | #136 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Mostly meaningless for actual effect in the short term, or even not too distant long term, IMO. Unless there's another case already 90% through the system that will radically (and clearly) redefine what is and is not permissible then it's mostly a philosophical victory for the reasonable future, and I know of no such case. There are plenty of cases currently in the system that will help to make small, incremental changes, but I see none that will provide for radical, nation-wide rewrites of existing laws and policies.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 30, 2010, 10:45 AM | #137 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
What about the defense against tyranny?
Not being a legal scholar - it seems to me that one central point in the current debate is the role of firearms in personal self-defense.
But what about defense against tyranny? Was it or is it still important? A letter to the NY Times today made that point: Quote:
Now, Clarence Thomas' opinion clearly points out that gun control laws were designed in part to deprive blacks of the instrumentality to protect themselves against racists who were in part supported by Southern local governmental structures. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html His opinion speaks to the issue: Quote:
So, are we losing one part of the reason for the 2nd - the defense against liberty in the majority view and most of the discussion. On this forum, I've pointed out the defense of liberty and some say that we could not defend against the might of the armed forces. But that's a touch of a red herring. Defense against actions such as Thomas describes (which were a form of governmental tyranny) is certainly possible. In history, we certainly see how ruling parties fund and use terror against opponents on their way to power or to maintain power. Kristallnacht (certainly an instance of government approved terror and tyranny) might have been a different story with an armed populace. Just my thoughts for today. Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
||
June 30, 2010, 10:48 AM | #138 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 30, 2010, 11:01 AM | #139 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I see a fair amount of "hand-wringing" about Heller and McDonald only finding a right to keep a gun in the home for self defense. But that was the underlying factual context for each case, and courts decide the cases in front of them.
We need to remember that in the course of deciding Heller and McDonald, the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases. In real world terms, that is huge. When we all went to bed last Sunday night, we had little prospect for successfully challenging in court many of the most restrictive state gun laws. That all changed by breakfast time, of at least our mid-morning coffee break, on Monday morning. Now we have something to work with. |
June 30, 2010, 11:04 AM | #140 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
Between the two decisions a firm foundation has been laid that will serve as a powerful weapon against gun bigotry. And yes, despite the complaints from people who are unhappy because they can't carry a bazooka concealed without a permit today, it IS huge. |
|
June 30, 2010, 12:43 PM | #141 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
We've won, but to quote Al Pacino, this is a battle of inches. Though the idea of an armed populace as a bulwark against tyranny has been brought up in supporting arguments, all we've gotten from the Supreme Court so far is the right to keep a gun for the "core right" of self-defense of the individual. I can't really think of a case we could bring that would force the courts to accept the 2nd Amendment as a last resort against tyranny. Frankly, if we have to invoke the right, it may be too late for courts.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 30, 2010, 12:48 PM | #142 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I agree, a ban on ARs would be quite constitutional under a view of the handgun in the home for self-defense.
Granted the decision is a great step forward as compared to the view that NO guns, no way for self-defense. But, given our own rhetoric suggests that we can do almost all the self-defense we need with a wonder handgun like the Judge (), one could see bans being successfully promoted for other guns. Such rules would have to be fought on the political and legislative level as compared to the constitutional one, if I understand the decision. Nor can gun bans on campus or other locations be constitutionally challenged, in the near future.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 30, 2010, 12:51 PM | #143 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Peña v Cid should be picking up momentum soon as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 30, 2010, 12:58 PM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
OK, I'll concede it was a major win.
But, do we have any notion as to when the cases waiting in the wings will start to proceed through the system? Perhaps I was under the misconception that these were ready to launch and simply waiting on the McDonald button to be pushed. I guess I don't type as fast as Tom Servo. That post was made while I was typing and is exactly what I was thinking about. But I seem to recall more than 2 cases were waiting.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
June 30, 2010, 01:01 PM | #145 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Neither decision indicates that the right is solely for self defense. As an analytical matter, the right is not linked to service in a particular active militia unit. However de-linking the right from service does not mean that the prefatory clause is useless in describing the scope of the right as suggested in Miller. So an AR might be less than optimal for defense in a small apartment, but no one is foreclosed from arguing its coverage under the right; a ban could still face constitutional difficulty. I agree both that we could see successful bans for some classes of weapons, and that the political arena is where much of the contest can still take place. However the modest of Heller/McDonald does not mean that a continuing incremental approach would not have good results.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
June 30, 2010, 01:08 PM | #146 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Also, for a somewhat different perspective, litigation is only the tip of the iceberg. By now the many meeting to come have already started -- in the offices of State Attorneys General and among senior members of legislatures. What laws are most vulnerable to judicial challenge? How much is dealing with the litigation going to cost? What can be done to deal with the costs and head things off? And senior people in state RKBA groups and NRA representative are, or soon will be, meeting to discuss not only litigation plans, but legislative advocacy strategies to best capitalize on McDonald. |
|
June 30, 2010, 01:14 PM | #147 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
One argument that the dissenters made was that different areas had different circumstances, Chicago being different from the Wild West locales that some of us live in. Thus, Chicago might be unable to fight off a total ban on handguns but still maintain an AR ban as not being suited for apartment defense. Defense against tyranny being a different beast as tyranny is not locale specific.
In TX, Dr. Gratia-Hupp made a compelling case for handgun carry after the Luby's incident. However, during the AWB hearings, a woman who used an AR to defend herself was not convincing. That probably was due to several factors, including aggressive priming and gender stereotypes. I'm just concerned that the self-defense focus is limiting but I might just be a worry-wart. Current political currents seem to indicate that large scale federal bans aren't going to fly. Local bans seem to be supported by the populace in those areas. NY, CA, and IL for instance could vote the bums out. But now the bums are restrained to some extent from banning all handguns. They will throw up obstacles, so you can't get that wonder HD Judge.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 30, 2010, 02:13 PM | #148 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
I think it is more likely that voters who like restrictive gun laws will continue to like them and vote for people who back them. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
June 30, 2010, 02:27 PM | #149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The local tailoring argument is in part racist. It implies that the denizens of that area are so unlawful that it is better to take away the guns or forbid ownership of guns even to the law-abiding folks in that area. These are usually the areas with large minority populations.
Thus, Breyer wants to restrain their constitutional rights in some kind of paternal view. In the past, as Thomas pointed out the race card was played to make minorities defenseless against oppression. Today, it is to protect them from themselves. And of course, protect the priviledged classes from the spill over if some of those minorities commit crime against the priviledged. So poor old Mr. McD had to be defenseless for the greater good of his cohort, as decided by Breyer, Sotomayer, etc.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 30, 2010, 02:50 PM | #150 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"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. |
|
|
|