Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
The conservative Heritage Foundation has published a tract on what they think of the Supreme Court's upcoming case concerning Washington DC's gun ban. The Bush administration recently filed a brief with the Court, saying they thought it should rule that the govt still has the power to enact lots of "gun control" laws to restrict firearms in DC. A lot of gun-rights advocates weren't too happy with that.

Now the Heritage Foundation says that gun-rights advocates should be a lot happier - that the administration's position basically agrees with the fundamental idea that the American people do have the right to own and carry freely - it's not just a "right" of military groups, but a right of individuals.

Heritage also points out that, if the Supreme Court does accept the individual-rights idea, they are likely to require the government to come up with very strong reasons why gun bans should still be allowed... and that the govt is unlikely to be able to do that. Their excuse has always been that "gun control" laws make society safer. But now they would have to PROVE that in court - something they will find very difficult in the face of huge evidence to the contrary.

Sounds like this DC gun ban case, and the government's position in it, are very good news for the rights and safety of ordinary, law-abiding American citizens.

See Heritage's full report at:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/upload/wm_1775.pdf

If the Supremes do decide to uphold the lower court's ruling that the DC gun ban is an unconstitutional violation of people's 2nd amendment right to own and carry guns and other such weapons, then the door will be open for people in other areas (cities, states etc.) to bring their own suits against laws restricting their gun rights too. Given the precedent that such a decision would set, it would be hard for most gun bans, permit requirements, and other such laws to stand.
 
Watermark said:
Conservatives, for states rights whenever it allows gangs to mudrer children, not for states rights when it allows gays to marry.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that telling lies like that, will advance an argument somewhere.

Back to the subject:

If the Supremes do decide to uphold the lower court's ruling that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional, does anyone know of other gun-rights cases that are already in the system, that might next make it to the Supreme Court?

The Emerson case from the 5th Circuit, has already been denied cert by the Supremes. Is there a way it can be brought back, or is it pretty much dead as a result?


Not that it matters a lot. There are literally thousands of gun laws in various cities, states, and counties, which are just as unconstitutional as the DC gun ban. We are bound to see a big surge in such cases, if/when the Supremes affirm the DC gun ban ruling.
 
Little-Acorn said:
You seem to think that telling lies like that, will advance an argument somewhere.

Back to the subject:

If the Supremes do decide to uphold the lower court's ruling that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional, does anyone know of other gun-rights cases that are already in the system, that might next make it to the Supreme Court?

The Emerson case from the 5th Circuit, has already been denied cert by the Supremes. Is there a way it can be brought back, or is it pretty much dead as a result?


Not that it matters a lot. There are literally thousands of gun laws in various cities, states, and counties, which are just as unconstitutional as the DC gun ban. We are bound to see a big surge in such cases, if/when the Supremes affirm the DC gun ban ruling.
Click to expand...

Why are you lying?!
 
The only other case where the Supreme Court has addressed the 2nd amendment directly, was US v. Miller in 1939. Oddest thing about that case, was that the Defense didn't even show up for the trial.

Miller was a bank robber and a bootlegger, whose lawyer was working for free. They had gone to District Court, which found that the law under which Miller was charged (the 1934 National Firearms Act) was unconstitutional. Miller was freed, and disappeared. The govt appealed to the Supreme Court, but Miller's lawyer couldn't find his client. He didn't want to go through the huge task of preparing a Supreme Court case where he probably wouldn't get paid, and had a sizeable caseload otherwise, so he didn't send any briefs or casework to the Court.

Only the prosecution showed up, and they took advantage of having no one at the trial who would contradict anything they said. They recited several flat lies into the record, and the Court rubber-stamped them into an Opinion. The Opinion is full of language like "It is not within judicial notice that....", basically saying that since no one has contradicted what the Prosecution said, they judges would accept their statements as is.

Two weeks after the Supreme Court trial, Miller was found dead in an stream bed with four gunshot wounds to the chest.

There has not been any review of the case, and no other straightforward 2nd Amendment case has been brought to the Supreme Court since then... until this DC gun ban case, scheduled for a hearing this summer.

A hearing on the 2nd amendment is WAY overdue, especially considering the gross miscarriage of justice that came out of the Miller case.
 
Little-Acorn said:
The only other case where the Supreme Court has addressed the 2nd amendment directly, was US v. Miller in 1939. Oddest thing about that case, was that the Defense didn't even show up for the trial.

Miller was a bank robber and a bootlegger, whose lawyer was working for free. They had gone to District Court, which found that the law under which Miller was charged (the 1934 National Firearms Act) was unconstitutional. Miller was freed, and disappeared. The govt appealed to the Supreme Court, but Miller's lawyer couldn't find his client. He didn't want to go through the huge task of preparing a Supreme Court case where he probably wouldn't get paid, and had a sizeable caseload otherwise, so he didn't send any briefs or casework to the Court.

Only the prosecution showed up, and they took advantage of having no one at the trial who would contradict anything they said. They recited several flat lies into the record, and the Court rubber-stamped them into an Opinion. The Opinion is full of language like "It is not within judicial notice that....", basically saying that since no one has contradicted what the Prosecution said, they judges would accept their statements as is.

Two weeks after the Supreme Court trial, Miller was found dead in an stream bed with four gunshot wounds to the chest.

There has not been any review of the case, and no other straightforward 2nd Amendment case has been brought to the Supreme Court since then... until this DC gun ban case, scheduled for a hearing this summer.

A hearing on the 2nd amendment is WAY overdue, especially considering the gross miscarriage of justice that came out of the Miller case.
Click to expand...

Clearly you hate America.
 
sure I will feel much safer if laws prohibiting felons and such from having guns are struck down.

runs around yelling they are going to take our guns away.....
 
uscitizen said:
sure I will feel much safer if laws prohibiting felons and such from having guns are struck down.
Click to expand...

There are no such laws.

We have lots of laws, so many that law-abiding citizens have a tough time buying a gun, and a VERY tough time carrying one.

But felons - people who have demonstrated they have no problem breaking laws, especially major ones - are affected very little by so-called "gun control" laws. They can buy a gun just by showing up on the right street corner... and a significant number do. Same goes for carrying, as long as they don't make it obvious.

Getting rid of these laws you are so afraid of, will do little to affect felons' ability to get or carry guns. But it will make it possible - finally - for law-abiding citizens to do the same. These are the people you don't need to worry about, in case you've forgotten.

"Gun control" laws only affect people who obey laws. They don't have much affect on felons and other criminals. Getinng rid of those laws will have a net BENEFIT on our society, by enabling law-abiding people to defend themselves, as many cannot do now. And getting rid of those laws will put some doubt into the minds of criminals, when they know that the little old lady they're about to mug, might now have a gun and the training to use it. Most little old ladies won't, of course, but a few may. And the criminals won't know which ones.

"Gun control" laws - or any laws, for that matter - only control the law-abiding. And gun control laws DISARM those law abiding people, while doing little to felons.

We're better off without them. Much.
 
Watermark said:
Of course, all gun crimes are commited by "criminals" [sic] (think of a black guy).
Click to expand...

Why do you so quickly associate criminals with black people?

Back to the subject:
The Supreme Court will soon hold its first hearing on the limits and scope of the 2nd amendment in nearly 60 years when it hears the DC gun ban case. It's high time. Practically no part of the Constitution has been so thoroughly mischaracterized, with so little judicial definition, as the 2nd. Though its language is straightforward enough, anti-gun-rights people have come up with "interpretations" ranging from simply wrong to truly bizarre.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

But some of the sillier misinterpretations include the notion that this somehow applies only to military groups, not "the people". You have to have flunked English 101, more than once, to be able to get that from the language of the 2nd. Another says that the 2nd only protects the right to own to military style weapons (this was one of the lies read into the record by the prosecution in the Miller case in 1939, which was rubber-stamped into an opinion when no one from the defense showed up to contradict it). And predictably, although the Court ruled it did protect such weapons, the government has proceeded to make laws restricting or even banning exactly those weapons, in violation of even the twisted "Miller" ruling.

Now the Court will have a chance to re-evaluate that ruling and its contradictions with the actual 2nd amendment. It's coming none too soon, as the Federal and state governments are piling restriction upon restriction of ordinary people's right to own and carry. The government's brief in the case, does concede the major point, that the 2nd protects the right of ordinary individuals (as its language clearly says), not some "right" of military groups. As such, it a major step forward, especially if the article's prediction is true that courts usually give a lot of weight to arguments from the government that the government doesn't hae the power to violate the people's right in this way.
 
uscitizen said:
sure I will feel much safer if laws prohibiting felons and such from having guns are struck down.

runs around yelling they are going to take our guns away.....
Click to expand...
I think I have probably represented somewhere in the area of 2 dozen men with felony records who were charged with Felon in possession of a fire arm. Now clearly there was a law that said they could NOT have that fire arm but there they were, clearly in violation of that law. Wow and here I was the whole time thinking that once there was a law it would not be violated. And why is it that someone that knowingly writes a bad check should not be allowed to have a fire arm? Where is that exception to the second amendment in the constitution? I have looked and looked and it is nowhere to be found.
 
Socrtease said:
I think I have probably represented somewhere in the area of 2 dozen men with felony records who were charged with Felon in possession of a fire arm. Now clearly there was a law that said they could NOT have that fire arm but there they were, clearly in violation of that law. Wow and here I was the whole time thinking that once there was a law it would not be violated. And why is it that someone that knowingly writes a bad check should not be allowed to have a fire arm? Where is that exception to the second amendment in the constitution? I have looked and looked and it is nowhere to be found.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the restriction on all felons is retarded. In Mississippi, if you write a bad check you can't vote (for life) and you can't own a gun (for life). 1 in every 4 black men in Mississippi can't vote.

If we're going to have a restriction, it should only be on violent felons. But you're a fool if you think that's going to stop them from getting one if they really want it.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Why do you so quickly associate criminals with black people?

Back to the subject:
The Supreme Court will soon hold its first hearing on the limits and scope of the 2nd amendment in nearly 60 years when it hears the DC gun ban case. It's high time. Practically no part of the Constitution has been so thoroughly mischaracterized, with so little judicial definition, as the 2nd. Though its language is straightforward enough, anti-gun-rights people have come up with "interpretations" ranging from simply wrong to truly bizarre.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

But some of the sillier misinterpretations include the notion that this somehow applies only to military groups, not "the people". You have to have flunked English 101, more than once, to be able to get that from the language of the 2nd. Another says that the 2nd only protects the right to own to military style weapons (this was one of the lies read into the record by the prosecution in the Miller case in 1939, which was rubber-stamped into an opinion when no one from the defense showed up to contradict it). And predictably, although the Court ruled it did protect such weapons, the government has proceeded to make laws restricting or even banning exactly those weapons, in violation of even the twisted "Miller" ruling.

Now the Court will have a chance to re-evaluate that ruling and its contradictions with the actual 2nd amendment. It's coming none too soon, as the Federal and state governments are piling restriction upon restriction of ordinary people's right to own and carry. The government's brief in the case, does concede the major point, that the 2nd protects the right of ordinary individuals (as its language clearly says), not some "right" of military groups. As such, it a major step forward, especially if the article's prediction is true that courts usually give a lot of weight to arguments from the government that the government doesn't hae the power to violate the people's right in this way.
Click to expand...

There's already a supreme court precedence that states that states don't have to abide by the second ammendment.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Why do you so quickly associate criminals with black people?

Back to the subject:
The Supreme Court will soon hold its first hearing on the limits and scope of the 2nd amendment in nearly 60 years when it hears the DC gun ban case. It's high time. Practically no part of the Constitution has been so thoroughly mischaracterized, with so little judicial definition, as the 2nd. Though its language is straightforward enough, anti-gun-rights people have come up with "interpretations" ranging from simply wrong to truly bizarre.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

But some of the sillier misinterpretations include the notion that this somehow applies only to military groups, not "the people". You have to have flunked English 101, more than once, to be able to get that from the language of the 2nd. Another says that the 2nd only protects the right to own to military style weapons (this was one of the lies read into the record by the prosecution in the Miller case in 1939, which was rubber-stamped into an opinion when no one from the defense showed up to contradict it). And predictably, although the Court ruled it did protect such weapons, the government has proceeded to make laws restricting or even banning exactly those weapons, in violation of even the twisted "Miller" ruling.

Now the Court will have a chance to re-evaluate that ruling and its contradictions with the actual 2nd amendment. It's coming none too soon, as the Federal and state governments are piling restriction upon restriction of ordinary people's right to own and carry. The government's brief in the case, does concede the major point, that the 2nd protects the right of ordinary individuals (as its language clearly says), not some "right" of military groups. As such, it a major step forward, especially if the article's prediction is true that courts usually give a lot of weight to arguments from the government that the government doesn't hae the power to violate the people's right in this way.
Click to expand...
Miller was a very limited holding, the court there held that the second amendment never envisioned protecting the right to possess a sawed off shotgun.

Specifically the court said:

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.
Click to expand...
what is missed alot in the Miller decision is the court never does the evaluation of whether or not Miller was part of a militia, so without saying it basically admits that the right belongs to the people, nor did they buy the federal government's argument that the right belonged to the states. Miller was very narrowly tailored and dealt ONLY with the specific weapon in the case.
 
Socrtease said:
Miller was a very limited holding, the court there held that the second amendment never envisioned protecting the right to possess a sawed off shotgun.
Click to expand...

That is not what the decision says. specifically, the court could not say whether the short barreled shotgun was a common weapon for use in a well regulated militia and remanded the case back to the trial court for further fact finding, which never happened because the defendants were dead.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what supreme court precedence would that be?
Click to expand...

Baron v. Baltimore (1833): The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. However, the Court could incorporate the 2nd Amendment in its decision. The decision itself has never been struck down entirely, but has been slowly eroded over time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top