PDA

View Full Version : Alan Gura on Strategic Civil Rights Litigation


hoffmang
10-23-2010, 5:01 PM
52_27JeI9YY

This is Alan Gura at a GRNC (Gun Rights North Carolina) event talking about the necessity of experts in civil rights litigation.

-Gene

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 5:08 PM
Interesting background music.

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 5:17 PM
Interesting background music.

At least the speaker is pretty good ;). I just found this via google alerts - didn't encode it.

-Gene

user_name
10-23-2010, 5:22 PM
Interesting background music.

yeah, I found that very distracting too.

Monte
10-23-2010, 5:24 PM
Great stuff, Gene. Thanks for posting.

I hope the NRA gets their act together before they cause any serious damage butting into another one of these cases.

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 5:54 PM
It really does send mixed signals as to the motivations of some, as to whether certain people really want our litigation front to succeed, given certain vested interests. Not to be tin foil hat, even though that sounds like it.

jpr9954
10-23-2010, 5:58 PM
I was at that dinner. Alan Gura was really good that night in explaining the process of strategic civil rights litigation. My girlfriend who really isn't a gunny was really impressed. She kept wanting to go up to Chris Cox when we saw him on the floor of the Charlotte Convention Center and give him a piece of her mind.

Other speakers at the dinner included John Lott, Joe Tartaro, and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Lott had actually just showed up to attend the dinner and was in the process of buying a ticket. When the GRNC leadership realized who he was, they drafted him into speaking.

Proof that I was there is that I saw myself around the 4:20 mark. I'll let you figure out which one is me!:D

navyinrwanda
10-23-2010, 6:02 PM
The single biggest immediate threat to our gun rights is not the appointment – believe it or not – of hostile judges.

The problem that we have is also not necessarily anti-gun groups.

The single biggest threat that we have to our firearms freedoms is rash and unwise litigation – ostensibly from our side – that is done by people who frankly do not know what they are doing and have no business doing it.

-- Alan Gura, Grass Roots North Carolina Gala for Gun Rights, Charlotte NC, 14 May 2010


That pretty much sums it up.

CHS
10-23-2010, 6:13 PM
Ouch. A few big burns on the NRA.

But I do agree with him. The NRA needs to stick with what they know, and that's political lobbying. It would be nice if they would offer financial support and backing to litigation going forwards, but ultimately I would like to see the grandstanding toned down or eliminated by them.

Window_Seat
10-23-2010, 6:18 PM
"We have to make the other side accept the premise of gun rights, even if they don't like the policy, they have to at least concede it's constitutionality"

—Alan Gura

This is why the SAF & Alan Gura will always be ahead of the NRA when it comes to arguing these cases before the Federal Courts.

:gura:

Erik.

Stonewalker
10-23-2010, 6:36 PM
The single biggest immediate threat to our gun rights is not the appointment – believe it or not – of hostile judges.

The problem that we have is also not necessarily anti-gun groups.

The single biggest threat that we have to our firearms freedoms is rash and unwise litigation – ostensibly from our side – that is done by people who frankly do not know what they are doing and have no business doing it.

-- Alan Gura, Grass Roots North Carolina Gala for Gun Rights, Charlotte NC, 14 May 2010

I think he is probably burning Mr. Gorski more than anyone else. Man what an *** that guy is. (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/Sykes-Gura-NRA-interfering-once-again-with-Second-Amendment-litigation.pdf)

pitchbaby
10-23-2010, 6:53 PM
yeah, I found that very distracting too.

Ditto

MindBuilder
10-23-2010, 6:57 PM
Alan Gura said:
The single biggest immediate threat to our gun rights is not the appointment – believe it or not – of hostile judges.
While this may be true, it is a little misleading. The biggest IMMEDIATE threat to our gun rights may be bad litigation, but it will only be a few years before Obama will have a chance to change the Supreme Court if he is re-elected. The liberal judges showed in McDonald that they would not respect the precedent of Heller. If you vote for Obama, your vote will have the effect of nullifying the Second Amendment.

I was also rather surprised at Gura's belief that the advocate's credibility with the judges was important. I never thought any of the judges gave any credibility to any of the advocates. Even advocates that are exceptionally logical and think they are being honest are very prone to interpret things in a distorted way. Do judges not realize this? I hope they do, because one of the important principles of reasoning is to recognize that you have to be careful not to put too much trust even in your own judgement, let alone the judgement of an interested party to a case.

There was an extremely bad error made in the Heller case, which was that it was filed when the make up of the Supreme Court would have made it a loser. (Unless it was forseen that justices would be replaced to make it just barely a winner) Given the makeup of the court when Heller was finally decided, even a sleeping lawyer would have won.

And although there is an obvious advantage to picking a sympathetic plaintif, I doubt it makes a huge difference because I think the justices think more about the effects on society as a whole rather than in the narow circumstances of the particular case. Using an organization as a plaintif has the minor avantage that then the organization controls the case rather than a possibly unpredictable individual. And given the great importance of fundraising to the protection of our rights, getting your organization's trade mark into the title of an historic case could be valuable marketing. NRA vs DC probably would have been a better historical name than "Heller" (or even "Parker", as was originally intended)

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 7:14 PM
Alan Gura said:

While this may be true, it is a little misleading. The biggest IMMEDIATE threat to our gun rights may be bad litigation, but it will only be a few years before Obama will have a chance to change the Supreme Court if he is re-elected.
You wildly overstate the risks. The risk is that one of the Heller 5 meets an untimely death. All of them can easily stay on the bench for 6-7 years.

I was also rather surprised at Gura's belief that the advocate's credibility with the judges was important. I never thought any of the judges gave any credibility to any of the advocates.
And that's why you're not a strategic civil litigator. Credibility and reputation matter. It's, for example, how Paul Clement was able to do the almost never heard of petition to divide time in McDonald. No lesser lawyer with less credibility would ever have been granted. It's a backhanded compliment to Alan.

There was an extremely bad error made in the Heller case, which was that it was filed when the make up of the Supreme Court would have made it a loser. (Unless it was forseen that justices would be replaced to make it just barely a winner) Given the makeup of the court when Heller was finally decided, even a sleeping lawyer would have won.
Did you see that O'Conner was in the majority on a favorable 2A decision when sitting by designation in 7th circuit a couple of months ago? It's really easy to be vote 4 against the 2A. It is very hard to be vote 5. That would have lead to the fastest amendment to the US Constitution in history. But based on the fear you express, individuals now can't bring facial challenges to Federal laws in D.C. thanks to the NRA and Seegars. See Dearth v. Holder for the negative impact.

And although there is an obvious advantage to picking a sympathetic plaintif, I doubt it makes a huge difference because I think the justices think more about the effects on society as a whole rather than in the narow circumstances of the particular case. Using an organization as a plaintif has the minor avantage that then the organization controls the case rather than a possibly unpredictable individual. And given the great importance of fundraising to the protection of our rights, getting your organization's trade mark into the title of an historic case could be valuable marketing. NRA vs DC probably would have been a better historical name than "Heller" (or even "Parker", as was originally intended)
Really? I can think of very few well known SCOTUS cases named after their backing organization. Can you point me to the cite for NAACP v. Bad Guy?

You're kind of proving Alan's points here.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
10-23-2010, 7:39 PM
I was at that dinner. Alan Gura was really good that night in explaining the process of strategic civil rights litigation. My girlfriend who really isn't a gunny was really impressed. She kept wanting to go up to Chris Cox when we saw him on the floor of the Charlotte Convention Center and give him a piece of her mind.

Other speakers at the dinner included John Lott, Joe Tartaro, and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Lott had actually just showed up to attend the dinner and was in the process of buying a ticket. When the GRNC leadership realized who he was, they drafted him into speaking.

Proof that I was there is that I saw myself around the 4:20 mark. I'll let you figure out which one is me!:D

Back left

Rossi357
10-23-2010, 7:49 PM
I'm not too concerned about future appointees to SCOTUS. The court is not in the habit of overturning itself. The more cases that are stacked up behind a decison make it more difficult to overturn. I suspect that's the reason they didn't use the P or I clause of the 14th Amendment. They would be re-argueing 100 plus years of cases. They took the easy route and used the due precess clause.
Just my thoughts.

the_quark
10-23-2010, 8:21 PM
Proof that I was there is that I saw myself around the 4:20 mark. I'll let you figure out which one is me!:D

And, why exactly did you get up at 4:20? ;)

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 8:41 PM
I'm not too concerned about future appointees to SCOTUS.I wasn't until 11/03/08. Since then it's been REALLY concerning, and the two gremlins they've put in there so far haven't made me less concerned one tiny bit. The court is not in the habit of overturning itself. Unless it wants to.

MindBuilder
10-23-2010, 9:49 PM
hoffmang wrote:

Mindbuilder wrote:
it will only be a few years before Obama will have a chance to change the Supreme Court if he is re-elected.
You wildly overstate the risks. The risk is that one of the Heller 5 meets an untimely death. All of them can easily stay on the bench for 6-7 years.
Really? All five of those old guys can probably keep serving for 6 more years? That may be true, I haven't looked at their ages or their average retirement age. I just assumed that was unlikely. I probably should have checked that out.

hoffmang wrote:
Credibility and reputation matter.
When I wrote I didn't think ANY advocate had ANY credibility with ANY judge, I thought it was obvious that I was exaggerating. Of course it matters significantly for a variety of things. Not the least of which is getting the judges to listen a little more carefully and give your opinion a little more consideration than they would if you were obviously full of crap. But still, in a typical court case I expect the advocate's credibility is barely significant, and in a major Supreme Court case like Heller, the importance of the case and the abundance of input from amicus briefs and such, renders the credibility of the advocate quite insignificant.

It was my impression that Clement got in, not because of his reputation, but because the court knew that Gura would emphasize PorI. And the justices probably knew beforehand that it was very unlikely they would go that route, so they thought they'd let in some oral argument on the due process side. And if credibility was an issue, Clement seems like the last person they'd let in since he had just argued a contradictory position for the government a while back.

Did you see that O'Conner was in the majority on a favorable 2A decision when sitting by designation in 7th circuit a couple of months ago?
While sitting in the 7th Circuit she would be bound by Heller/McDonald.

It's really easy to be vote 4 against the 2A. It is very hard to be vote 5. That would have lead to the fastest amendment to the US Constitution in history.
The vast majority of courts had long since scribbled the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution, and we didn't get an Amendment. The people in states that would vote for a new Second Amendment were not having their gun rights infringed too much. As long as federal laws didn't get too bad, I'm not so sure there would be much outcry for a new amendment.

I can think of very few well known SCOTUS cases named after their backing organization. Can you point me to the cite for NAACP v. Bad Guy?
A lot of cases are probably necessarily focused on an individual for reasons of standing. Even so, it's probably not worth checking, but I suspect there probably are a fair number of cases with NAACP and such as plaintiffs.

GOEX FFF
10-23-2010, 9:52 PM
My girlfriend who really isn't a gunny was really impressed. She kept wanting to go up to Chris Cox when we saw him on the floor of the Charlotte Convention Center and give him a piece of her mind.

Proof that I was there is that I saw myself around the 4:20 mark. I'll let you figure out which one is me!:D


My guess is that you're the dude centered with the yellow shirt and brown jacket? Since that's the only guy there in frame with a girlfriend. :D

MindBuilder
10-23-2010, 9:59 PM
Rossi357 wrote:
I'm not too concerned about future appointees to SCOTUS. The court is not in the habit of overturning itself.
That may be largely because of the five conservative justices. The liberals are less likely to uphold precedent. But even our five guys in Heller overturned Miller by finding a private right to self-defense and deleting the right to militia arms. After that little shake up, it's going to be hard to argue for the adherence to precedent. Furthermore, they don't have to explicitly overturn Heller. They can just uphold extremely tight background checks, insanely high taxes, and months of training requirements. Gun ownership would become so rare that political support would rapidly dwindle.

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 10:14 PM
hoffmang wrote:

Really? All five of those old guys can probably keep serving for 6 more years? That may be true, I haven't looked at their ages or their average retirement age. I just assumed that was unlikely. I probably should have checked that out.
You should become informed before commenting.

hoffmang wrote:

When I wrote I didn't think ANY advocate had ANY credibility with ANY judge, I thought it was obvious that I was exaggerating. Of course it matters significantly for a variety of things. Not the least of which is getting the judges to listen a little more carefully and give your opinion a little more consideration than they would if you were obviously full of crap. But still, in a typical court case I expect the advocate's credibility is barely significant, and in a major Supreme Court case like Heller, the importance of the case and the abundance of input from amicus briefs and such, renders the credibility of the advocate quite insignificant.

It was my impression that Clement got in, not because of his reputation, but because the court knew that Gura would emphasize PorI. And the justices probably knew beforehand that it was very unlikely they would go that route, so they thought they'd let in some oral argument on the due process side. And if credibility was an issue, Clement seems like the last person they'd let in since he had just argued a contradictory position for the government a while back.

Wrong.

While sitting in the 7th Circuit she would be bound by Heller/McDonald.
You clearly don't know the case. I'd suggest you read it.


As long as federal laws didn't get too bad, I'm not so sure there would be much outcry for a new amendment.
Wow, you're unaware of how the electorate works. If what you say is true can you explain to me why Kansas is modifying it's constitution to add a right to keep and bear arms?


A lot of cases are probably necessarily focused on an individual for reasons of standing. Even so, it's probably not worth checking, but I suspect there probably are a fair number of cases with NAACP and such as plaintiffs.
You assert you're right when I told you you're wrong. The three cases entitled NAACP v. _______ were all about states, merchants, etc. attempting to attack NAACP. No case NAACP brought was brought as NAACP v. Bad guy. Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia. But I guess you know better about the history of strategic civil rights litigation.

Sadly, even more proof that Alan is correct.

-Gene

hoffmang
10-23-2010, 10:16 PM
But even our five guys in Heller overturned Miller by finding a private right to self-defense and deleting the right to militia arms.

No. US v. Miller never questioned the individual right to keep and bear arms. It simply ruled that there was no evidence that a short barreled shotgun was a common enough arm to be protected. If US v. Miller had ruled that the right to arms wasn't individual, then the court would have found that the (then dead) Mr. Miller didn't have standing to mount a challenge...

-Gene

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 10:38 PM
There wasn't evidence because no attempt to provide any was made.

Crom
10-23-2010, 11:18 PM
I enjoyed the video and I appreciate what Alan had to say. Our movement is privileged to have his talents coupled with the SAF resources working to advance our civil rights.

Blackhawk556
10-24-2010, 2:31 AM
at GRPC Hoffmang was introduced as the, "Non lawyer"
why aren't you a lawyer Hoff??
you seem to know your stuff

MindBuilder
10-24-2010, 4:09 AM
hoffmang wrote:
US v. Miller never questioned the individual right to keep and bear arms.
True, but the money quote from Miller is this:
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.
I think the Miller court was wrong to ignore the personal self-defense uses of sawed-off shotguns and focus only on the militia usefulness, but then I think the Heller court is wrong to limit the militia clause with the absurdly circular "in common use" standard. It is clear that the Miller court found an individual right to keep and bear militia type weapons, and since Miller's militia membership was never brought up, the right applied even to those not actively enrolled in an official militia.

can you explain to me why Kansas is modifying it's constitution to add a right to keep and bear arms?
It's strange that Kansas DIDN'T modify it's constitution back when the vast majority of courts found the 2nd Amendment to be only a state right, and IS modifying it now when McDonald has made it redundant.

I should have been clearer though that I agree with you that if the Supreme Court had nullified the 2nd Amendment, an amendment to replace it would very likely have been swiftly passed. But I'm just not so sure. And a Supreme Court Justice who hates guns might have a much different way of looking at the issue than you or me, and may be even less sure about the outcome of being the fifth vote. Besides, it wouldn't make sense for a Justice to vote to uphold the 2nd Amendment out of fear that an amendment would be swiftly passed to replace it. That would be the certainty of letting the gun rights side have the 2nd Amendment instead of the slight chance that a new amendment would fail to materialize.

OleCuss
10-24-2010, 4:32 AM
at GRPC Hoffmang was introduced as the, "Non lawyer"
why aren't you a lawyer Hoff??
you seem to know your stuff

It seems he had better things to do than to sit for the bar. . .

Our Gene has been a very busy man.

MindBuilder
10-24-2010, 4:51 AM
hoffmang wrote:
Did you see that O'Conner was in the majority on a favorable 2A decision when sitting by designation in 7th circuit a couple of months ago?
Are you referring to Williams, where the court wrote:
And although we recognize that § 922(g)(1) may be
subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point be-
cause of its disqualification of all felons, including those
who are non-violent, that is not the case for Williams.
Even if the government may face a difficult burden of
proving § 922(g)(1)’s “strong showing” in future cases,
it certainly satisfies its burden in this case...[emphasis added]
Although O'Connor joined in this opinion, she didn't write it. I don't see how these hypotheticals say much about how she would have voted in Heller. Even if she thought poorly of the merits of an overbreadth challenge, she might not have bothered to waste time objecting to this dicta that does little more than suggest the mere possibility of an argument. And even if she hates gun rights, she may recognize the unfairness of depriving some felons of the right unfairly. For example she may think that it would be unfair to deprive Martha Stewart of gun rights just because she succumbed to the temptation to sell her stocks on an insider tip.

BigDogatPlay
10-24-2010, 9:25 AM
For example she may think that it would be unfair to deprive Martha Stewart of gun rights just because she succumbed to the temptation to sell her stocks on an insider tip.

Except that's not why Martha's gun rights are forfeit...... :)

1911su16b870
10-24-2010, 9:41 AM
...Bringing the Right Cases, with the Right People, at the Right Places, at the Right Time, in a thoughtfull manner...

Rossi357
10-24-2010, 9:58 AM
Except that's not why Martha's gun rights are forfeit...... :)

Elongating nose syndrome.
Having an idiot lawyer syndrome.
Talking to LEO's syndrome.

KEEP YER PIE HOLE SHUT.

stitchnicklas
10-24-2010, 10:35 AM
can gura be anymore awesome??

corrupt
10-24-2010, 2:59 PM
Interesting video and discussion, thanks!

jpr9954
10-24-2010, 3:50 PM
And, why exactly did you get up at 4:20? ;)

Well, someone had to clean up the dirty plates!

MindBuilder
10-24-2010, 4:22 PM
For those wondering about the chance of our five guys on the court getting past an Obama second term, I looked into it a little. According to Wikipedia the average age of retirement (post 1970) is 79.
The current ages of our five guys are:
Roberts 55
Scalia 74
Kennedy 74
Thomas 62
Alito 60
If there is a 50/50 chance of each of the two older justices making it past the Obama presidency, then the chance that both of them will is only 25%. But I think the older a justice is, the more likely he is to exceed the average. And I suspect the average life and health expectancy for judges today is probably better than it was in the 70's, so 79 may be a little underestimate of retirement age. And if they have the ability, they may stall their retirement till the next president, though the average retirement age may already incorporate that factor to some extent. And of course in six years the other three will be into the age range where sudden death or disability is a significant possibility.

So it's not real clear, but it looks like a vote for Obama is very risky for the 2nd Amendment.

Legasat
10-24-2010, 7:49 PM
Alan is a very intelligent guy.

I'm glad he is on our side....

goober
10-24-2010, 8:07 PM
...If there is a 50/50 chance of each of the two older justices making it past the Obama presidency, then the chance that both of them will is only 25%...


Perhaps you are just trying to illustrate how joint probability works, but beyond that, speculating with totally made up numbers is not only meaningless, i can think of another "M" word that pretty much describes such an activity... :rolleyes:

MindBuilder
10-24-2010, 8:51 PM
Perhaps you are just trying to illustrate how joint probability works, but beyond that, speculating with totally made up numbers is not only meaningless, i can think of another "M" word that pretty much describes such an activity... :rolleyes:
The chance of a justice making it to average retirement age is about 50/50. We need them to make it a year past average retirement age, so the chance of that is a little less than 50/50. But it's hard to calculate how much less, so I just went with 50/50. It's an imprecise estimate anyway for the other reasons I mentioned. So the chance of both of them making it past retirement age may be something like 25% or less. These numbers aren't "made up" in the sense that they're meaningless fiction, they're just imprecise approximations. Approximate calculations are often worth a lot more than mere guesses. I don't know what the exact probability is, but it's clear that a vote for Obama is risky for the Second Amendment.

dantodd
10-24-2010, 9:37 PM
For those wondering about the chance of our five guys on the court getting past an Obama second term,

:ROFL2: Surely you don't think this is anymore likely than a Carter second term. Do you?


So it's not real clear, but it looks like a vote for Obama is very risky for the 2nd Amendment.

How did "not real clear" got in there? Sorta like saying Electing Pat Roberts might not be good for gays and atheists.

goober
10-24-2010, 10:16 PM
The chance of a justice making it to average retirement age is about 50/50.

There you go again....:D
Care to explain where that 50% probability is coming from? Until you do, the only way to interpret it is that it is "made up".

MindBuilder
10-25-2010, 3:24 AM
It's a rough estimate based on their average retirement age, their current age, and the time till the end of an Obama second term. If you think it's fair to call an estimate the same thing as "made up", then I'd say you should think about it some more. If nothing less than a rigorous statistical analysis will satisfy you, I'm sorry to disappoint, but such will not be forthcoming. However, if you would like to present an alternative estimate, I would find that interesting.

goober
10-25-2010, 6:54 AM
It's a rough estimate based on their average retirement age, their current age, and the time till the end of an Obama second term. If you think it's fair to call an estimate the same thing as "made up", then I'd say you should think about it some more. If nothing less than a rigorous statistical analysis will satisfy you, I'm sorry to disappoint, but such will not be forthcoming. However, if you would like to present an alternative estimate, I would find that interesting.

Thought so. :rolleyes:
Here's some reading for you. (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/JudicialBehaviorStolzenberg.pdf)

Mulay El Raisuli
10-25-2010, 8:08 AM
And, why exactly did you get up at 4:20? ;)


LOL!


The Raisuli

kcbrown
10-25-2010, 8:47 AM
Did you see that O'Conner was in the majority on a favorable 2A decision when sitting by designation in 7th circuit a couple of months ago? It's really easy to be vote 4 against the 2A. It is very hard to be vote 5. That would have lead to the fastest amendment to the US Constitution in history.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind? An amendment that says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? :D

Regardless, you of all people should know that even Constitutional amendments are no match for a sufficiently determined Supreme Court. See Slaughterhouse in regard to the gutting of the 14th Amendment as a most excellent example of that.

wash
10-25-2010, 9:20 AM
:ROFL2: Surely you don't think this is anymore likely than a Carter second term. Do you?
Sadly I think that's much more of a posibility than you imagine.

Most voters are dumb and if the alternative is Palin, look out.

Justices usually retire when they are quite old because the job of a supreme court justice is a very good job.

When the president pisses off the justices by complaining about their decisions in televised speeches and is sure to apoint a socalist stooge if they were to retire, older justices will stick around as long as they need to.

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 10:04 AM
What sort of amendment did you have in mind? An amendment that says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? :D

Any person in government whose actions disarm a single victim shall be found guilty of treason and put to death.

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 10:39 AM
What sort of amendment did you have in mind?

IXX. The right of individual citizens to acquire, own, possess, bear, or carry arms for defense of self, others, and any other lawful purpose shall not be infringed but the manner of carry may be subject to narrow time, place, or manner restrictions. This right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny in the same manner as Amendment I.

Or something like that.

-Gene

yellowfin
10-25-2010, 11:33 AM
Time OR place OR manner, not two or three at once.

kcbrown
10-25-2010, 11:50 AM
IXX. The right of individual citizens to acquire, own, possess, bear, or carry arms for defense of self, others, and any other lawful purpose shall not be infringed but the manner of carry may be subject to narrow time, place, or manner restrictions. This right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny in the same manner as Amendment I.

Or something like that.


Good thing you said "or something like that". :D

The "and any other lawful purpose" is the means by which the right can be restricted such that it is for defense of self and others only, since it opens the door for making all other purposes unlawful.

And "narrow" is a term that is subject to interpretation by the court, as is "strict scrutiny".

As the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can take any part of the Constitution and interpret it to mean whatever it wants it to mean. It has routinely done this with the Commerce Clause, for instance. I see no reason to believe that the Court won't pull a Slaughterhouse against an additional Constitutional amendment if it so chooses, if said amendment is passed in response to Court shenanigans with respect to the 2nd Amendment, unless the new amendment is explicitly tailored to directly control the Court itself. That would be an interesting amendment.

curtisfong
10-25-2010, 11:59 AM
IXX. The right of individual citizens to acquire, own, possess, bear, or carry arms for defense of self, others, and any other lawful purpose shall not be infringed

Can't we just stop there :/

510dat
10-25-2010, 12:06 PM
IXX. The right of individual citizens to acquire, own, possess, bear, or carry any arms for defense of self, others, or any other lawful purpose shall not be infringed, restricted, or in any manner inhibited."

Can't we just stop there :/

Even better. :D

yellowfin
10-25-2010, 12:08 PM
It needs to have an enforcement clause imposing penalties upon politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and officials. Our biggest problem with all of our Constitutional provisions is that they carry no enforcement and penalties, at very most "Stop, or I'll say stop again!" whereas you or I can and will be thrown in prison for possessing a rifle or shotgun with a barrel an inch too short or an extra hole in the receiver.

dantodd
10-25-2010, 12:40 PM
What sort of amendment did you have in mind?

Amendment XXVIII In Re: Amend. II: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

MindBuilder
10-25-2010, 4:41 PM
The votes required to add an amendment to the Constitution are the same as are required to replace any or all justices on the Supreme Court. The reason the court got away with rewriting the Constitution in Cruikshank is that the states had shifted so that the support that had been there previously had faded.

Hoffmang's suggested amendment is a great start. To that I would add, no taxes or fees or anything like that on arms or ammunition, and no more than short safety training requirements. Also no "safe" handgun requirements or product safety requirements and no lawsuits against manufacturers for acts of criminals. And no treaties with foreign countries regulating the small arms of American citizens. In fact, maybe we should go for an Amendment banning or limiting these things right now, while we can. Can we get something like that passed currently? If no taxes on arms is going too far, maybe we could limit them to no higher than taxes on ordinary items, and/or maybe a specified fee, like $10.

N6ATF
10-26-2010, 12:22 AM
Amendment XXVIII In Re: Amend. II: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

"... oh, of course you understand it, and you're going to continue to wage war on the Constitution and people's rights? DIE, you traitorous bastard."

Dreaded Claymore
10-26-2010, 12:39 AM
"... oh, of course you understand it, and you're going to continue to wage war on the Constitution and people's rights? DIE, you traitorous bastard."

BANG BANG BANG :52: