PDA

View Full Version : Legislators who carry (CCW)


RWxtremist
01-28-2010, 8:53 PM
Another thread got me wondering how many CA legislators have a CCW permit but refuse to allow other citizens that same right? Does anyone know of a source for this information?

Anothercoilgun
01-28-2010, 9:11 PM
Another funny oxymoron. The very object that got the Governor his fame is the thing the Governor says to possess is a shame.

bigcalidave
01-28-2010, 10:13 PM
The ultimate Hypocrite? Dianne Feinstein. She got a CCW back in the 70's and I believe still has one? She was there when harvey milk and moscone were assassinated, too bad she wasn't armed then... Or was she? Conflicting info all over the place about when she got her permit and if she still has one.

CCWFacts
01-29-2010, 3:52 AM
Another thread got me wondering how many CA legislators have a CCW permit but refuse to allow other citizens that same right? Does anyone know of a source for this information?

Unfortunately the only way to answer it would be to do PRARs on all 58 county sheriffs, and also on the hundreds of city PDs in this state.

Even then, I don't 100% trust their reporting. I've seen the LA sheriff's list, and there were some duplicate names on it. If there are duplications, there could also be omissions.

RWxtremist
01-29-2010, 7:13 AM
Unfortunately the only way to answer it would be to do PRARs on all 58 county sheriffs, and also on the hundreds of city PDs in this state.

Even then, I don't 100% trust their reporting. I've seen the LA sheriff's list, and there were some duplicate names on it. If there are duplications, there could also be omissions.

That's a great point, CCWFacts. Would not this information be public information and subject to publication? I am curious why litigants CG, NRAm et al, do not seem to request and use this information. Exposing the absolute hypocrisy, IMO, would possibly be the strongest argument toward gun rights for all law abiding citizens.

It might be better to have that information on a national scale directly from the feds.

PS - I don't trust their reporting either.

Billy Jack
01-29-2010, 7:24 AM
Many CCW holders are County and Federal judges as well as legislatures. Outing them on a site like this will not further your cause. Many CCW cases are currently in court with additional cases pending filing. We are going to need all the friends we can find.

I know the names of many Judges and legislatures and their bodyguards who have CCW but I am discreet enough not to post it. I have had LASO Baca's list for awhile and will not disclose who is on it.

You are lifted aloft by a large bird of prey. You have a knife and can stab the bird to death and in so doing bring about your own death. Or you can wait until the bird lands and deal with it on the ground. Which course of action will you choose Grasshopper?

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.

RWxtremist
01-29-2010, 7:35 AM
Many CCW holders are County and Federal judges as well as legislatures. Outing them on a site like this will not further your cause. Many CCW cases are currently in court with additional cases pending filing. We are going to need all the friends we can find.

I know the names of many Judges and legislatures and their bodyguards who have CCW but I am discreet enough not to post it. I have had LASO Baca's list for awhile and will not disclose who is on it.

www.californiaconcealedcarry.

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with considering the LACO Sheriff or Chief of Police a friend. He is one of many politicians who regularly fight against the right of a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon. I could be wrong but outside of campaigning, they are against guns in the hands of John Q Public.

My point was more to expose the hypocrisy than to "out" politicians and others by name that have a CCW. If there are 500 CCWs issued and 85% - 90% of them are issued to the elite, i.e. politicians, their contributors, and bodyguards, that would be a strong argument for a "shall issue" case.

Billy Jack
01-29-2010, 7:49 AM
Grasshopper, slow down, re-read the post. Humble Brave is referring to Judges and Legislatures. 'If one goes into China shop and acts as a bull, there will be scant left to buy when he calms down'. Billy Jack

As I have stated before, CLEOS are aware of these sites and posts and you must remember, a persons judgment is a consideration when issuing a CCW.


Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

a1c
01-29-2010, 8:18 AM
That's a great point, CCWFacts. Would not this information be public information and subject to publication? I am curious why litigants CG, NRAm et al, do not seem to request and use this information. Exposing the absolute hypocrisy, IMO, would possibly be the strongest argument toward gun rights for all law abiding citizens.

It might be better to have that information on a national scale directly from the feds.

PS - I don't trust their reporting either.

I don't see why this information should be public. I wouldn't want just anybody to be able to find out if I CCW, for instance.

davescz
01-29-2010, 8:20 AM
[QUOTE=Billy Jack;3719446]Many CCW holders are County and Federal judges as well as legislatures. Outing them on a site like this will not further your cause. Many CCW cases are currently in court with additional cases pending filing. We are going to need all the friends we can find.

I know the names of many Judges and legislatures and their bodyguards who have CCW but I am discreet enough not to post it. I have had LASO Baca's list for awhile and will not disclose who is on it.

You are lifted aloft by a large bird of prey. You have a knife and can stab the bird to death and in so doing bring about your own death. Or you can wait until the bird lands and deal with it on the ground. Which course of action will you choose Grasshopper?

Billy Jack




seems these politicains and judges need this publized. there can be divided into two groups, thoose that want gun rights for the rest of us, and the enemy camp. a gun rights supporter should have no probelm with us disclosing a CCW permit as they are on our side already. for the hypocritical politicians that are anti-civil rights, they need to be exposed as two faced liars. dont protect these sob's, expose them for all that they are.

Aegis
01-29-2010, 8:34 AM
In order to shame the members of the legislature who are against issuing CCW permits to all law abiding citizens, yet have CCW permits themselves, assumes these politicians have ethics which they do not. There are probably many members of the state legislature and senate who have CCW permits, but do not want anyone else to have them.

An honest member of the state legislature or senate with professional ethics and morals would not request a CCW, while denying permits to all law abiding citizens.

Outing these morally and ethically bankrupt politicians will do nothing. The courts will have to repeal these unconstitutional guns laws in CA.

Billy Jack
01-29-2010, 8:57 AM
A wise person chooses their adversaries carefully. A fool wants to fight everyone in sight.

In the proper forum, not here, the information on CCW holders is appropriate for judicial review. I have done it myself on cases I have worked and will continue to do so, but it is not appropriate for vicarious disclosure.

You can keep this discussion going for many more posts but it will serve little purpose. This topic comes up periodically and goes nowhere. Have something new to add?

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 10:05 AM
Billy Jack, thanks for posting some sage advice for the members (as well as some humor- love the take on the bull in a china shop).

RW, we will gain SI CCW because the right to carry is protected Constitutionally (via Palmer/Sykes); as Gorski has learned all too well, a RICO/corruption case gets you less than nowhere. Channel your anger into productive activities- have you volunteered for Calguns outreach lately?

gose
01-29-2010, 10:08 AM
Billy Jack, thanks for posting some sage advice for the members (as well as some humor- love the take on the bull in a china shop).

RW, we will gain SI CCW because the right to carry is protected Constitutionally (via Palmer/Sykes); as Gorski has learned all too well, a RICO/corruption case gets you less than nowhere. Channel your anger into productive activities- have you volunteered for Calguns outreach lately?

The bull in the china shop was de-bunked by mythbusters though ;)

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 10:58 AM
The bull in the china shop was de-bunked by mythbusters though ;)

They probably should have used Code Blue for the experiment. :P

http://camerawench.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PBR_Rnd_8_Final_11_08_09-131.jpg

bodger
01-29-2010, 11:23 AM
Forget the knife, shoot the s**t out of that bird before he gets a good grip on you. :D:DMany CCW holders are County and Federal judges as well as legislatures. Outing them on a site like this will not further your cause. Many CCW cases are currently in court with additional cases pending filing. We are going to need all the friends we can find.

I know the names of many Judges and legislatures and their bodyguards who have CCW but I am discreet enough not to post it. I have had LASO Baca's list for awhile and will not disclose who is on it.

You are lifted aloft by a large bird of prey. You have a knife and can stab the bird to death and in so doing bring about your own death. Or you can wait until the bird lands and deal with it on the ground. Which course of action will you choose Grasshopper?

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 11:27 AM
Forget the knife, shoot the s**t out of that bird before he gets a good grip on you. :D:D

:rofl2: :rofl2:

CCWFacts
01-29-2010, 2:56 PM
That's a great point, CCWFacts. Would not this information be public information and subject to publication? I am curious why litigants CG, NRAm et al, do not seem to request and use this information. Exposing the absolute hypocrisy, IMO, would possibly be the strongest argument toward gun rights for all law abiding citizens.

Because it would take an enormous effort to file and follow up on 600+ PRARs. Many of them would need to be taken to court. Many of them would omit a few names. And listing all 40,000 (?) CCW holders in CA would be counter-productive for our cause.

It might be better to have that information on a national scale directly from the feds.

CA's information only exists in the files of individual issuing authorities.

PS - I don't trust their reporting either.

No, neither do I. I saw LASO's list. It had several duplications and some misspellings. If they made errors like that, it would be expected they also made some omissions.

Many CCW holders are County and Federal judges as well as legislatures. Outing them on a site like this will not further your cause.

I agree.

The only people I would want to out would be anti-gun politicians, like any anti-gun members of the assembly or state senate. Or anti-gun insecure steroid-abusers like Sylvester Stallone (http://blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.aspx). But the hassle and expense of doing 600+ PRARs to find them isn't worth it.

The reason why these are all public records is so that we can check for corruption in issuance. If we were shall-issue, there would be no good reason for them to be public records. I hope that we go shall-issue (Sykes case maybe) and then the leg. will change PC 12050 to make these private records.

There's a lot of info in CCW apps, a lot of which would be better to not have in public.

Glock22Fan
01-29-2010, 3:08 PM
This recurrent argument reminds me of the movement to 'out' closet gays many years ago (in England for sure, not sure if it happened here as well). That created an enormous surge of resentment against those (open) gays who used unpleasant tactics and were quite happy for closet gays to lose their jobs and contacts in the interests of "honesty and lack of hypocracy".

Not sure that they ever achieved much good.

I am also amused by the people who say "I don't want my name published, I have a right to privacy, but we must 'out' these hypocrites."

Really, all you do is make enemies who aren't going to listen to you any better, and probably worse, afterwards.

bigcalidave
01-29-2010, 3:10 PM
You are lifted aloft by a large bird of prey. You have a knife and can stab the bird to death and in so doing bring about your own death. Or you can wait until the bird lands and deal with it on the ground. Which course of action will you choose Grasshopper?


'If one goes into China shop and acts as a bull, there will be scant left to buy when he calms down'.

Birds of prey kill by crushing you with their razor sharp talons after snatching you up at high speed... You don't make it back to the ground to argue....

And, Nk_zpMory-0


But thank you :D

The rest was good.

Doheny
01-29-2010, 3:13 PM
The ultimate Hypocrite? Dianne Feinstein. She got a CCW back in the 70's and I believe still has one?.

She says she doesn't have one any longer: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9007

.

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 3:16 PM
Birds of prey kill by crushing you with their razor sharp talons after snatching you up at high speed... You don't make it back to the ground to argue....


Falcons generally kill prey by breaking the neck with the "falcon's tooth":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/FalconHeadBeak.png

Bird's of prey often eat where they strike since only a few have the ability to carry off large meals (owls and eagles are some exceptions).

bigcalidave
01-29-2010, 3:21 PM
The majority of diurnal birds of prey hunt independently, and capture and kill game with their talons. Falcons use both their talons and beak to subdue prey.

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/raptors/diet.htm

:D

I suppose if BJ had said "carried off by a falcon..."

RWxtremist
01-29-2010, 3:28 PM
Billy Jack, thanks for posting some sage advice for the members (as well as some humor- love the take on the bull in a china shop).

RW, we will gain SI CCW because the right to carry is protected Constitutionally (via Palmer/Sykes); as Gorski has learned all too well, a RICO/corruption case gets you less than nowhere. Channel your anger into productive activities- have you volunteered for Calguns outreach lately?

Wildhawker, I'm afraid you have misjudged my comments and intent. I am not angry in the least, but rather confused at the apparent futility of the indirect methods that some of the 2A litigation efforts described here on CG, take. To me, the best defense is a solid offense. Being productive means getting results. According to many posts on CG, our hopes are dependent upon federal cases, i.e. McDonald v Chicago, that CA will undoubtedly ignore (again). Some say the McDonald case is a turning point. I am not so sure.

We hear all the time from politicians and other elites how gun control is good and citizens should not be allowed to own firearms for any reason, yet the evidence shows just the opposite. Occasionally, we also hear that some in that camp either hold a CCW or have used their gun (properly) in self defense. In other words, the ones who make the laws speak out of both sides of their mouth. That's why it is called politics.

After 20+ years actively supporting the NRA and seeing my gun rights continuously erode in CA, I am simply wishing for a more effective and direct route to restore the rights given to me by the country's forefathers. The Federal Government gets it, but the state does not. Either guns are allowed by the Constitution or they are not. To apply the law (CCWs) in a prejudicial fashion is disingenuous and breeds contempt.

BTW - you can tell from my post count that I am a noob to CG. Many of the posts on this forum indicate a desire for action over words, which I applaud if done in a lawful manner. Cal Guns is by far more active than most other pro-2A organizations. That is why I am here. And yes, my intent is to become a very active CG member in my local area.

Peace, we are on the same side.

JaMail
01-29-2010, 3:40 PM
i would be much more interested in looking at the pattern of issued CCW's..

If i get turned down, but a local DA gets one based on his high profile job, then i should get one if i choose based on the fact that i have to take public transportation.

and dont get me started on some of these people needing body gaurds.. what bull****..

i dont have a body gaurd when im on the metro going through compton, and ive watched tweekers and bullies get on the train and try to start fights or intimidate people that look non threatining to them..

some guy got on the train and tried to start a fight with my friend.. the whole "what are you looking at?" why are you dis respecting me" crap, my co-workers is the most non threating guy you would ever see.. im the total opposite, i look like a thug, and the guy didint realize we were traverling together, so when he was about to swing at my friend and i stepped up and said why dont you try that **** with me, he backed down.

what if he hadnt? what if he pulled a knife? or a gun?


im so damn irritated at the CCW laws in this state..


read suzanna hupp's description of that day in Luby's when she saw her parents murdered...

i have that fear every time i get on the train, some nut job wanting to go out in style with a high body count in a train during rush hour with no exits over a bridge.


911 my ***.. id rather have 10 of my co-passengers carying..

im 100% recomending everyone here read her book, if you need it, ill even mail you my copy if you pass it on to someone when your done.

RWxtremist
01-29-2010, 3:48 PM
i would be much more interested in looking at the pattern of issued CCW's..

If i get turned down, but a local DA gets one based on his high profile job, then i should get one if i choose based on the fact that i have to take public transportation.



Well stated. Many ordinary citizens face more danger each day than do elites.

wildhawker
01-29-2010, 4:01 PM
Your comments lead me to believe there exists a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature and process of civil rights advocacy and litigation.

I'm not sure what results you find lacking in the litigation>astroturf>grassroots approach. Could you elaborate?

CA cannot "ignore" a fundamental right, such as 2A, when incorporated and applied as against the states. On what are you basing your assertion that it could?

I sympathize with your frustrations about the current disposition of California gun and self-defense rights but remain a bit confused as to what you would deem "going on the offensive".


Wildhawker, I'm afraid you have misjudged my comments and intent. I am not angry in the least, but rather confused at the apparent futility of the indirect methods that some of the 2A litigation efforts described here on CG, take. To me, the best defense is a solid offense. Being productive means getting results. According to many posts on CG, our hopes are dependent upon federal cases, i.e. McDonald v Chicago, that CA will undoubtedly ignore (again). Some say the McDonald case is a turning point. I am not so sure.

We hear all the time from politicians and other elites how gun control is good and citizens should not be allowed to own firearms for any reason, yet the evidence shows just the opposite. Occasionally, we also hear that some in that camp either hold a CCW or have used their gun (properly) in self defense. In other words, the ones who make the laws speak out of both sides of their mouth. That's why it is called politics.

After 20+ years actively supporting the NRA and seeing my gun rights continuously erode in CA, I am simply wishing for a more effective and direct route to restore the rights given to me by the country's forefathers. The Federal Government gets it, but the state does not. Either guns are allowed by the Constitution or they are not. To apply the law (CCWs) in a prejudicial fashion is disingenuous and breeds contempt.

BTW - you can tell from my post count that I am a noob to CG. Many of the posts on this forum indicate a desire for action over words, which I applaud if done in a lawful manner. Cal Guns is by far more active than most other pro-2A organizations. That is why I am here. And yes, my intent is to become a very active CG member in my local area.

Peace, we are on the same side.

Billy Jack
01-29-2010, 4:33 PM
I would like to put things in perspective for those that want to take a look at who has CCW v who was denied. Sounds real simple until you actually do it.

I am in the final stages of a PRAR, pre filing investigation of a northern California department that has fewer than 75 CCW issued. My investigation has taken over 18 months and my team and I have had to do a Forensic examination of over 5,000 pages of files. We have an additional 2,000 plus pages on the way down as I write this. We do spread sheets, comparisons, cross reference and so forth.

So when you folks say that you want to look at the files for abuse I have a good laugh. There are more subtleties than you can possibly imagine. Did they give campaign contributions? Did their employees? You have to identify each contributor and determine if there is a connection to a CCW holder. Not simple and certainly not quick.

If you rush into a department, grab the CCW files and expect a 'ah ha' moment you are in for a big surprise.

Found one person whose GC on the surface seemed valid until further investigation revealed two things. One he is a multi millionaire who does not do what he claims he does and number two, we found several other holders, also millionaires who used virtually the same wording in their GC statement.
What an incredible coincidence.

This is the reason Federal lawsuits that do not depend on a comparison of files are in for trouble down the road. Remember Gorski in Sacramento County? San Diego case going to get flushed by the Judge down the road. She is protecting the record so she will not be reversed at the 9th Circuit. I rest my case.

Yes, there is abuse. Yes, the well connected get CCW. Yes, it can be stopped, one department at a time in Federal court. Like watching Wild Kingdom or Animal Planet. After the Lion takes down a wildebeest, the others become much more careful. I am the Lion, I am the Walrus, coo coo cachoo. Sorry, I had a Beetles flash back for a moment there. Yes, I have a sense of humor. Lonely on Reservation.

Hope you have a better understanding of how 'easy' it is to prove abuse.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

bulgron
01-29-2010, 4:36 PM
Yes, there is abuse. Yes, the well connected get CCW. Yes, it can be stopped, one department at a time in Federal court. Like watching Wild Kingdom or Animal Planet. After the Lion takes down a wildebeest, the others become much more careful. I am the Lion, I am the Walrus, coo coo cachoo. Sorry, I had a Beetles flash back for a moment there. Yes, I have a sense of humor. Lonely on Reservation.

Hope you have a better understanding of how 'easy' it is to prove abuse.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Abuse is going to be a lot easier to prove once Sykes pays off and we take the 'discretion' toy away from the issuing agencies.

Yes, I know I'm being a hopeless optimist.

Yes, I'm okay with that. :D

dantodd
01-29-2010, 4:45 PM
The time for this may be AFTER Sykes when the CCW holding antis can be outed or leveraged. It would be a shame if our lobbyists didn't have this information.

RWxtremist
01-30-2010, 8:17 AM
Your comments lead me to believe there exists a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature and process of civil rights advocacy and litigation.

I'm not sure what results you find lacking in the litigation>astroturf>grassroots approach. Could you elaborate?

CA cannot "ignore" a fundamental right, such as 2A, when incorporated and applied as against the states. On what are you basing your assertion that it could?



Perhaps so as I am certainly no expert in law. What I find lacking in the approach is this. Say the state passes a law against the 2A, as they did with AW. Nothing happened, except that some people registered their ARs, some did not. Federal law is allowed to expire, the state keeps their ban intact. Special interest groups, gun lobbys, (whatever term you like), stood by. Instead of mounting a challenge to have it overturned, they pick away at pieces of it. It's kind of like taking down an ice berg by using only a pick. all it does is make you tired.

If the SCOTUS says 2A is legit, and 2A says nothing about the action, features, color, etc., of a weapon, how does any state have the right to determine what "arms" are, or what features they have? When the 2A was written, they used black powder. Technology then afforded the bolt, pump, and now auto/semi-auto. We have essentially today the same weapons in purpose that they had when the 2A was written, only more efficient.

Since the state/government makes the rules, it can ignore any "right" it wishes, just as it has with the 2A. Case in point, DC v. Heller; did DC have the right to ban handguns? Of course not, but they did anyway. How many privately owned guns did DC steal (by definition, the taking of another's property by force or fear) and destroyed and the owners not compensated? How long were citizens denied their right to self preservation before the SCOTUS decided to rule? The government has the power and can do whatever they want.

bulgron
01-30-2010, 9:28 AM
Perhaps so as I am certainly no expert in law. What I find lacking in the approach is this. Say the state passes a law against the 2A, as they did with AW. Nothing happened, except that some people registered their ARs, some did not.

At the time the state passed the AW ban, we had no legally addressable protection to arms in the courts, so "nothing happened" was the only answer we had at the time.

Once the 2A is incorporated against the states, we WILL have a legally addressable protection to arms. "Nothing happened" will no longer be our only answer. I believe you will then see the California AW ban attacked in short order, as will many of California's gun laws.

dantodd
01-30-2010, 11:18 AM
Say the state passes a law against the 2A, as they did with AW. Nothing happened, except that some people registered their ARs, some did not. Federal law is allowed to expire, the state keeps their ban intact. Special interest groups, gun lobbys, (whatever term you like), stood by. Instead of mounting a challenge to have it overturned,

Consider this your welcome to the fight. In California right now the Second Amendment doesn't exist. I do not mean that as hyperbole, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution literally has no standing in the State of California today. What you learned in Grade school was wrong.

Why doesn't the Second Amendment apply? Because the courts have said that he framers of the constitution never intended for it to apply to the states. (I agree but not everyone does.) Many states mention the RKBA in their state constitutions, California does not.

So, there was no possible way for the gun lobby or other special interest group to mount a successful challenge, though some tried. In short, today a total ban on Guns would be legal in California.

Now, in the middle of the 19th century we adopted (possibly illegally) the 14th amendment which was intended to extend the protection of the Privileges or Immunities of a U.S. citizen to include prohibitions of infringement by the states. This was in response to the treatment of freed slaves by the governments in the Southern States. The 14th amendment also guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens and guaranteed the right to due process.

This might have been the end of such ill treatment except for a decidedly recalcitrant Supreme Court. SCOTUS wasn't happy with the 14th amendment largely because it was written, in part, to throw out their decision in Dred Scott. A case known as Slaughter Houses came up and the Supreme Court threw out the entire part of the 14th amendment that related to the federal government ensuring all citizens their Privileges and Immunities as citizens. Yep. Nine people essentially destroyed a big chunk of what was to be part of our constitution.

Because the courts are generally bound to abide by rulings of the SCOTUS by a principle known as stare decisis this terrible ruling has remained for nearly 150 years.

Why do we have protection against the state setting up a state religion? Or protection against the state infringing on our right to free speech? Well, a lot of really smart lawyers asked the Supreme Court to extend these rights to the people and prohibit the states from infringing by claiming that they were denied due process when the state made such infringements. The SCOTUS knew Slaughter Houses was bad case law but didn't want to go against stare decisis so they said that we could selectively incorporate the First Amendment into all state law. This forbade states from interfere with our right to free speech, religion and assembly.

All of the other individual protections in the Bill of Rights also have been selectively incorporated through the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. The only hold out is the Second Amendment. Why, wasn't the second amendment incorporated?

In modern times this is largely because of the prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," has been interpreted by some to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is only extended to those arms and persons useful to the militia. In U.S. v. Miller this view was (sort of) institutionalized by the Supreme Court. They decided that Miller didn't have the right to own a short barreled shotgun because it wasn't useful for the militia (an issue they technically got wrong as the military has used short-barreled shotguns since at least the first World War.) While Miller didn't state specifically that only people serving directly in the militia would be affording 2A protections it did say that only guns useful to the militia were covered. Since that time (and before) many scholars argued that the second amendment was a collective right reserved for the several States and not directly reserved for the citizens thereof.

Alan Gura call bull on this theory and filed the Heller case. In a great decision SCOTUS denied that Miller institutionalized the Collective theory of the second amendment and that there was, in fact, no stare decisis one way or the other at the SCOTUS level on whether the 2A is a collective vs. individual right. Therefore; on a 5-4 vote they decided that the 2A IS an individual right. (Since Heller is a D.C. resident and governed by federal and not state law the ruling only effected federal laws.)

There is no real point in trying to get the Second amendment incorporated against the states if it is simply a collective right for the states to create and regulate militia. But NOW we are dealing with, not a collective right, but an individual right. A very short time after the Heller decision was announced there were several new lawsuits that were almost identical to Heller but were against non-federal entities. The purpose of these lawsuits is to get the second amendment incorporated. Alan Gura, of Heller fame, filed one of these suits; McDonald v. City of Chicago. McDonald has finally wound its way through the lower courts and is going to be heard by SCOTUS in March.

Civil Rights battles are not wholly won overnight. It is a long drawn out process that takes years and millions of dollars.

Now, we are asking that the Supreme Court not only incorporate the Second Amendment but also that they overturn Slaughter Houses and re-establish the Privileges or Immunities clause as the authors intended. This request to overturn Slaughter Houses is why many here saw the Citizens United case as so important because it showed that the current SCOTUS is willing to deny stare decisis status to case law that it sees as being contrary to the original meaning of the constitution.

Since the state/government makes the rules, it can ignore any "right" it wishes, just as it has with the 2A. Case in point, DC v. Heller; did DC have the right to ban handguns? Of course not, but they did anyway.

As you can see from the above, until the Heller case was brought up there was no prohibition on D.C. from implementing a handgun ban. It was not settled case law and much of the case law that did exist suggested that the ban might be constitutional.

RWxtremist
01-30-2010, 2:37 PM
Dantodd, That is a lot to research and comprehend. Thanks for the education, I do appreciate it.

wildhawker
01-30-2010, 2:48 PM
Great post, Dan.

JaMail
01-31-2010, 4:36 PM
very nice post, explained some stuff i didint really understand.

dantodd
01-31-2010, 6:08 PM
Dantodd, That is a lot to research and comprehend. Thanks for the education, I do appreciate it.

My pleasure. Not being an attorney my first foray into the actual sausage factory that is the judicial history of our republic was quite a shock. There is a lot to learn and luckily there are now lots of resources we can all explore online to study. The Circuit court opinion in Nordyke includes an excellent primer on incorporation from a very good judge I highly recommend reading through it.

So many of the folks on this board have slowly picked up the background on the jurisprudence around 2A and toss ideas around in a manner that can appear rather less well considered to those not fully immersed in the history. Always feel free to ask if there is anything that people seem to treat as more important than a layman's reading would indicate. I think anyone here who really understands the issues is happy to explain them.

obeygiant
01-31-2010, 9:55 PM
Great post, Dan.

Indeed a great post as it gives a very concise understanding of how we got to where we are.