PDA

View Full Version : Heller II vs DC is in


ziegenbock
10-04-2011, 8:38 AM
Looks like this round was lost.

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 8:55 AM
Lots of rational basis labeled as intermediate scrutiny, blathering of the legal fiction of "assault weapons" -- when can we get that term purged from the vocabulary as well as its inane premise?!? :mad:

choprzrul
10-04-2011, 8:56 AM
Nuts!

Crom
10-04-2011, 8:56 AM
Thanks. Reading it now.


The district court granted summary judgment for the District and the plaintiffs appealed. We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. We remand the other registration requirements to the district court for further proceedings because the record is insufficient to inform our resolution of the important constitutional issues presented.

^ I think they got it wrong.

Kharn
10-04-2011, 8:56 AM
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of
the district court with respect, first, to the requirement of mere
registration as applied to handguns and expressed in D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.01(a) and 7-2502.03(b), and second, to the
ban on “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines, as
they are defined in §§ 7-2502.02(a)(6), 7-
2501.01(3A)(A)(i)(I), (IV), and 7-2506.01(b). With respect to
the registration requirements in §§ 7-2502.03(a)(10), 7-
2502.03(a)(11), 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A), 7-2502.03(d), 7-
2502.03(e), 7-2502.04, and 7-2502.07a, and all the
registration requirements (including §§ 7-2502.01(a) and 7-
2502.03(b)) as applied to long guns, see Part II.B.3.c, the
judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Was the District a complete loss for us, or did we win on the second group of laws?

HowardW56
10-04-2011, 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 4, 2011 10:49am EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court on Tuesday upheld a District of Columbia law that bans semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines in Washington, finding that the restrictions were constitutional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-guns-ban-idUSTRE7933MB20111004

Tier One Arms
10-04-2011, 9:06 AM
Hope this gets appealed to the SCOTUS

Caladain
10-04-2011, 9:06 AM
One step closer. I do like the hand waving done around page 12 in regards to talking about Heller I.

Caladain
10-04-2011, 9:07 AM
Hope this gets appealed to the SCOTUS

It was always heading there from the beginning. Just gotta work the process to get there.

madmike
10-04-2011, 9:09 AM
Not at all surprising...

AngelDecoys
10-04-2011, 9:10 AM
Can anyone estimate a timeline for further action?

SoCalXD
10-04-2011, 9:11 AM
"The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime".

Wow, I must have missed that sub-clause in the US Constitution, along with that being the framers intent in the Federalist Papers. Man, talk about politically corrupt, statist judges.

ShootinMedic
10-04-2011, 9:18 AM
Two weeks?

ChuangTzu
10-04-2011, 9:23 AM
(Heller indicates “longstanding limitations are
exceptions to the right to bear arms”); United States v. Rene
E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (Heller “identified limits” of
the Second Amendment based upon “various historical
restrictions on possessing and carrying weapons”). This is a
reasonable presumption because a regulation that is
“longstanding,” which necessarily means it has long been
accepted by the public, is not likely to burden a constitutional
right; concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding
regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by
the Second Amendment.

:confused:

Nice try guys...

Paul S
10-04-2011, 9:27 AM
Two weeks?

Just had to say it didn't you? :D

The ruling is not surprising. One step forward...two steps back. Keep up the fight folks.

bwiese
10-04-2011, 9:30 AM
Heller II was a bit of 'everything in the basket thrown in' case.

That being said, and examining the judges involved, at this stage the results are kinda expected.

Swatter911
10-04-2011, 9:31 AM
Looks like the court cut and pasted a bunch of the Brady's talking points on semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines. I guess they were mesmerized by Mr. Siebel.

Wildeman_13
10-04-2011, 9:35 AM
:confused:
concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding
regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by
the Second Amendment.
Nice try guys...
I'm not lawyer, but doesn't this part right here give us all the reason we need to appeal it up? They are basically saying that just because no one opposed the unconstitutional laws before now, that the 2A no longer applies to it and it is perfectly valid? So all someone who wants to circumvent the constitution needs to do is keep a law on the books long enough for the Constitution to no longer matter... right?

Seems to me that this in and of itself is unconstitutional. :)

Crom
10-04-2011, 9:38 AM
Was the District a complete loss for us, or did we win on the second group of laws?

Complete loss in trial court: The district court granted summary judgment for the District and the plaintiffs appealed.

Kestryll
10-04-2011, 9:41 AM
I'm not lawyer, but doesn't this part right here give us all the reason we need to appeal it up? They are basically saying that just because no one opposed the unconstitutional laws before now, that the 2A no longer applies to it and it is perfectly valid? So all someone who wants to circumvent the constitution needs to do is keep a law on the books long enough for the Constitution to no longer matter... right?

Seems to me that this in and of itself is unconstitutional. :)

So, and this is just by way of comparison, there are still some antiquated and racist 'Jim Crow' laws on the books in some States that simply are not enforced or in some cases known about.

Does this mean that because they have been on the books so long that the civil rights they violate or even remove are not protected by the Constitution?

Nice precedence, that should blow up in their face.

putput
10-04-2011, 9:42 AM
That's one mangled mess right there. Wow.

SwissFluCase
10-04-2011, 9:43 AM
Heller II was a bit of 'everything in the basket thrown in' case.

That being said, and examining the judges involved, at this stage the results are kinda expected.

I was expecting it too, but it still stings. Oh well, onward...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CAL.BAR
10-04-2011, 9:46 AM
Precisely as I had expected. No straying from the core of the Heller case. We can have "guns". Pistols with 10 rounds. Not much beyond that. A state (or district this case) will always be able to impose "reasonable regulation" of firearms. "Reasonable" to be defined on a case by case basis, but always with an eye toward "public safety".

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 10:01 AM
When the judges say that the plaintiffs didn't offer sufficient proof that AR's and >10 magazines are useful for defense, sporting, and other lawful purposes, I'm curious about three things:

1. Did our side offer any evidence?
2. If so, what was insufficient about it? and
3. What proof would they/any Circuit court deem satisfactory as such that they'd agree with our side and write the opposite opinion from what they did?

Super Spy
10-04-2011, 10:15 AM
I hope this gets to SCOTUS and gets rectified correctly. Everyone knows that it's always the eleventh round spray fired from the hip in Brady approved manner that kills cops.

The whole bit about being able to hold your pistol in one hand while dialing the phone with the other......that's exactly why you need a rifle with a pistol grip, so you can effectively utilize your AK while on the phone with 911.

Apparently all the new reality TV shows like 3 Gun Nation and Top Shot have gone unnoticed and they don't realize that for sporting purposes, modern firearms are preferred. If the Government had their way we'd be doing 3 Gun with muzzle loaders....

vantec08
10-04-2011, 10:15 AM
Absolutely astonishing. But then, I thought (hoped) Nordyke would change things.

Crom
10-04-2011, 10:19 AM
Have any of you read the dissent by KAVANAUGH, (Circuit Judge)? I think he got it right. I think it's 51 pages in length, longer than the majority opinion.


In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

Plaintiffs also challenge D.C.’s ban on magazines of more
than 10 rounds. I would remand that issue for further factual
development in the District Court. See infra note 20.

safewaysecurity
10-04-2011, 10:21 AM
What about the common use test?

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 10:25 AM
What about the common use test?They acknowledged it, said AR15's and standard caps pass the test, but ignored it and ruled the way they wanted to anyway. It's 100% proof that they're being dishonest and clearly biased, ruling based on the outcome they want no matter what the reality is.

press1280
10-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Looks like 1 judge got it(mostly), he found the registration requirements and assault weapons ban unconstitutional and would have remanded the high-cap magazine ban back to the district court.
Like it or not-it would seem Heller is back on the doorstep of SCOTUS. We should see very soon whether they petition SCOTUS, ask for an en banc at the DC circuit, or just go back to the District court to challenge the registration requirements.

Crom
10-04-2011, 10:59 AM
Check out page 94 of the opinion, it's KAVANAUGH dissenting on the registration argument for public safety. He torpedoed the public safety argument for registration.
Moreover, D.C.’s articulated basis for the registration
requirement is that police officers, when approaching a house
to execute a search or arrest warrant or take other
investigative steps, will know whether the residents have
guns. But that is at best a Swiss-cheese rationale because
police officers obviously will assume the occupants might be
armed regardless of what some central registration list might
say. So this asserted rationale leaves far too many false
negatives to satisfy strict or intermediate scrutiny with respect
to burdens on a fundamental individual constitutional right^19
if I were applying a form of heightened scrutiny to the registration
requirement, I would remand for further analysis of the interests
that might be asserted. (It is possible, moreover, that the
registration law might pass intermediate but not strict scrutiny.)Footnote 19 of the dissent (pdf page 94), it speaks directly to registering to exercise a constitutionally recognized fundamental right
Moreover, citizens may not be forced to register in order to
exercise certain other constitutionally recognized fundamental
rights, such as to publish a blog or have an abortion. See Volokh,
Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense, 56
UCLA L. REV. at 1546 (discussing impermissibility of registration
requirements applied to free speech and abortion rights). In
concluding that D.C.’s handgun registration requirement might
satisfy intermediate scrutiny, the majority opinion notes that the
government may require registration for voting. See Maj. Op. at
18. But those laws serve the significant government interest of
preventing voter fraud. The majority opinion also cites car
registration laws. Id. Of course, there is no enumerated
constitutional right to own a car. Perhaps more to the point, those
laws help prevent theft and assist recovery of stolen cars. No
similar interest justifies gun registration laws.
D.C.’s registration law thus does not appear to be sufficiently
tailored to advance a compelling or important government
interest for purposes of the heightened scrutiny tests. That
said, D.C. alludes to the possibility that other rationales might
be asserted to support a registration requirement. Therefore,
Oddly, the majority opinion says that a registration
requirement is permissible for handguns but might be
impermissible for rifles or other long guns. See id. That approach
gives potentially greater constitutional protection to long guns than
to handguns even though Heller held that handguns warrant the
highest constitutional protection.

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 11:18 AM
Excellent work by Kavanaugh, but why couldn't he bring over one of the other two judges to sign onto this?

bwiese
10-04-2011, 11:21 AM
I will note that it is very beneficial to us that CA magazine law and CA semiautomatic rifle regulations are generally entirely separate from one another (with one small exception on fixed mag configuration).

Fighting one can be separated from the other. Working around the other and making it irrelevant won't affect any fixups of the former.

Rossi357
10-04-2011, 12:19 PM
The "spraying from the hip" was an interesting part.
Spraying from the hip is the second best way to miss everything you want to hit.
The best way to miss everything is to close your eyes.

Pistol grips make firing more accurate (CORRECT), so they should be banned (WRONG).
Pistol grips should be legal because they make firing more accurate.

Milsurp Collector
10-04-2011, 12:28 PM
The court majority basically said that as long as you are not completely prevented from owning firearms, many laws passed by legislators will survive intermediate scrutiny. They don't care that you want to own handguns that use 10+ round magazines. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of handguns that use 10 rounds or less you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. They don't care that you want an AR or AK. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of rifles, including bolt and lever-action rifles, or even semi-autos without "evil features" that aren't classified as "assault rifles", you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. Remember, to non-gun owners, "a gun is a gun", "they only have one purpose, to kill", blah blah.

If restrictive laws short of total bans passed in gun-unfriendly legislatures are going to be upheld by courts, clearly sensible gun owners should choose to live in the majority of places in the US that don't have such laws. Gun owners who willingly choose to live in gun-unfriendly cities/states can expect little sympathy from courts when those gun owners who willingly choose to live in those gun-unfriendly cities/states complain that they can only have guns A, B, or C but not X, Y, or Z, or that they are required to register their guns.

Rather than living in a gun-unfriendly place, praying and hoping year after year after year that "activist judges" will "legislate from the bench" (funny how that isn't so objectionable when the shoe is on the other foot) to give you what you want before you die from old age, just go to "real America" where a majority of the citizens and their elected legislatures support or at least accept your gun rights. That list of places does not include Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.

hoffmang
10-04-2011, 12:55 PM
When the judges say that the plaintiffs didn't offer sufficient proof that AR's and >10 magazines are useful for defense, sporting, and other lawful purposes, I'm curious about three things:

1. Did our side offer any evidence?
2. If so, what was insufficient about it? and
3. What proof would they/any Circuit court deem satisfactory as such that they'd agree with our side and write the opposite opinion from what they did?
This is the problem with trying to attack all bad laws at once. You don't have time to fully develop any one of them. This also highlights the reason why we're being careful with magazine regulations. The current attack we have in mind is not 2A based for a reason.

Make no mistake that this is the largest in court loss we've suffered. We're also now stuck with procedural problems in DC. Should NRA take the remand because they didn't have enough room to explore all the various different problems so that they can go get some of the registration requirements or should they go up (with even our supporting judges concerned that the record really isn't full on the key issues...)

This is the reason I've been unhappy with Heller II. Note that Heller II machinations are the reason that we were unable to get a hearing on the merits of the California Safe Handgun Roster in DC (Hanson.) Mr. Heller and his sidekick Dane B. were allowed by certain folks to set strategies they had no business being final arbiter upon... At least all three judges ignored the "escape valve..." :facepalm:

-Gene

MountainMike
10-04-2011, 1:02 PM
The court majority basically said that as long as you are not completely prevented from owning firearms, many laws passed by legislators will survive intermediate scrutiny. They don't care that you want to own handguns that use 10+ round magazines. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of handguns that use 10 rounds or less you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. They don't care that you want an AR or AK. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of rifles, including bolt and lever-action rifles, or even semi-autos without "evil features" that aren't classified as "assault rifles", you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. Remember, to non-gun owners, "a gun is a gun", "they only have one purpose, to kill", blah blah.

If restrictive laws short of total bans passed in gun-unfriendly legislatures are going to be upheld by courts, clearly sensible gun owners should choose to live in the majority of places in the US that don't have such laws. Gun owners who willingly choose to live in gun-unfriendly cities/states can expect little sympathy from courts when those gun owners who willingly choose to live in those gun-unfriendly cities/states complain that they can only have guns A, B, or C but not X, Y, or Z, or that they are required to register their guns.

Rather than living in a gun-unfriendly place, praying and hoping year after year after year that "activist judges" will "legislate from the bench" (funny how that isn't so objectionable when the shoe is on the other foot) to give you what you want before you die from old age, just go to "real America" where a majority of the citizens and their elected legislatures support or at least accept your gun rights. That list of places does not include Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.I'm sorry but comparing a judge who strikes down a law as unconstitutional to one who's rulings go beyond the scope of the spirit and letter of the law is simply foolish. The former is a prescribed action under the US Constitution and is our checks and balance system at work. The other is a perversion of the law and SHOULD be remedied with impeachment.

Rugerdaddy
10-04-2011, 1:36 PM
I'm sorry but comparing a judge who strikes down a law as unconstitutional to one who's rulings go beyond the scope of the spirit and letter of the law is simply foolish. The former is a prescribed action under the US Constitution and is our checks and balance system at work. The other is a perversion of the law and SHOULD be remedied with impeachment.

:iagree: My thoughts exactly. Applying the Constitution as written is hardly "legislating from the bench". (:smash: Order in the Court!)

Milsurp Collector
10-04-2011, 1:57 PM
I'm sorry but comparing a judge who strikes down a law as unconstitutional to one who's rulings go beyond the scope of the spirit and letter of the law is simply foolish. The former is a prescribed action under the US Constitution and is our checks and balance system at work. The other is a perversion of the law and SHOULD be remedied with impeachment.

My point is that judges are accused of being "activist judges legislating from the bench" when they do things whoever is calling them "activist judges" doesn't like. To the Brady Campaign, Scalia et. al were being "activist judges legislating from the bench" in Heller and McDonald.

When judges rule against laws banning, say, gay marriage, rather than upholding them, they are accused of being "activist judges legislating from the bench". But when judges uphold laws banning, say, "assault weapons", those same critics get upset that the judges didn't rule against the law.

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 2:01 PM
P.S. does anyone other than me get the feeling that intermediate scrutiny means whatever the court says it is at the time and is nothing more than rational basis by another name when it suits them?

Milsurp Collector
10-04-2011, 2:10 PM
The Brady Campaign loves this decision.

“Today’s ruling refusing to strike down any of Washington, D.C.’s strong gun laws is a decisive blow to the gun lobby’s extremist claims that there is a right to be armed with AK-47s and large-capacity assault clips.

“This is the same court that struck down D.C.’s handgun ban and laid the foundation for an individual right to a gun in the home for self-defense in the original case brought by Dick Heller. Afterwards, D.C. enacted among the strongest gun laws in the country. Of hundreds of legal challenges to gun laws brought since Heller, this one represented the broadest single attack on a set of gun laws. The D.C. Circuit relied heavily on evidence submitted by the Brady Center on the dangers of assault weapons and assault clips to reach its decision. The same court that originally struck down the D.C. handgun ban has now affirmed that strong gun laws are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.”

“The court recognized that gun registration is constitutional and thoroughly rejected gun lobby claims that there is a constitutional right to be armed with semi-automatic assault weapons. We are confident that the trial court will uphold all of D.C.’s other strong gun laws, such as limits on bulk sales of handguns and rifle registration, after the facts are more fully developed in court.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1439/

Gray Peterson
10-04-2011, 2:58 PM
Some people are more obsessed with having their name as primary plaintiff and letting bad lawsuits be filed under their name for their own personal glory rather than doing the right thing for the entire community.

Otis McDonald and Shelly Parker knew when to stand aside. Mr. Heller doesn't know when to stand aside or even acknowledge the contributions of Parker or Gura.

wildhawker
10-04-2011, 3:03 PM
Dick Heller doesn't appear to fail living up to his first name.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
10-04-2011, 3:06 PM
Dick Heller doesn't appear to fail living up to his first name.

-Brandon

Tell us how you really feel.

press1280
10-04-2011, 4:59 PM
P.S. does anyone other than me get the feeling that intermediate scrutiny means whatever the court says it is at the time and is nothing more than rational basis by another name when it suits them?

Yep. They can justify any law under intermediate scrutiny with one setence just saying it reduces crime,no facts needed.

BannedinBritain
10-04-2011, 5:04 PM
(Heller indicates “longstanding limitations are
exceptions to the right to bear arms”); United States v. Rene
E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (Heller “identified limits” of
the Second Amendment based upon “various historical
restrictions on possessing and carrying weapons”). This is a
reasonable presumption because a regulation that is
“longstanding,” which necessarily means it has long been
accepted by the public, is not likely to burden a constitutional
right; concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding
regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by
the Second Amendment.

:confused:

Nice try guys...

Didn't you know as long as they trample your rights long enough...you no longer are entitled to those rights? :rolleyes:

OleCuss
10-04-2011, 5:32 PM
Didn't you know as long as they trample your rights long enough...you no longer are entitled to those rights? :rolleyes:

In at least some states, that's how it works in real estate. You let people use your property long enough and they own it - even if you hold the deed and have been paying the property tax.

It actually reminds me of what some of the UOC'ers have said in the past. You use the right or you lose it.

In Kalifornia we've found that if you use the right you may lose it - and now we've got a court saying that if you don't use it you lose it. It's a Catch-22.

vincewarde
10-04-2011, 5:52 PM
Between Heller and McDonald we know that the level of scrutiny will be intermediate or strict. Should we be surprised that the Court of Appeals went with the lowest level of protection they possibly could go with?

Either way, this case was headed to SCOTUS - and we almost certainly will find out what level of protection 2nd Amendment rights get.

One would think that the ACLU would be very concerned about a right reserved to the "people" getting less than strict scrutiny. Are any other rights reserved for the people accorded less than strict scrutiny?

Another angle on the future of gun control in the US is that if Gunwalker turns out to have been a plan to justify gun control, a lot of people are going to ask why? Obviously, it is not to save lives. What was the real motive?

If, after Gunwalker, SCOTUS rules for intermediate scrutiny, there could very well be a backlash that would result in a strengthening of the 2nd Amendment or perhaps Federal laws limiting what the states can do. We need to be ready to move on the political front after the dust settles.

The fact that we are doing so well on the legal front should not prevent us from applying pressure on the political front.

anthonyca
10-04-2011, 5:52 PM
The court majority basically said that as long as you are not completely prevented from owning firearms, many laws passed by legislators will survive intermediate scrutiny. They don't care that you want to own handguns that use 10+ round magazines. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of handguns that use 10 rounds or less you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. They don't care that you want an AR or AK. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of rifles, including bolt and lever-action rifles, or even semi-autos without "evil features" that aren't classified as "assault rifles", you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. Remember, to non-gun owners, "a gun is a gun", "they only have one purpose, to kill", blah blah.

If restrictive laws short of total bans passed in gun-unfriendly legislatures are going to be upheld by courts, clearly sensible gun owners should choose to live in the majority of places in the US that don't have such laws. Gun owners who willingly choose to live in gun-unfriendly cities/states can expect little sympathy from courts when those gun owners who willingly choose to live in those gun-unfriendly cities/states complain that they can only have guns A, B, or C but not X, Y, or Z, or that they are required to register their guns.

Rather than living in a gun-unfriendly place, praying and hoping year after year after year that "activist judges" will "legislate from the bench" (funny how that isn't so objectionable when the shoe is on the other foot) to give you what you want before you die from old age, just go to "real America" where a majority of the citizens and their elected legislatures support or at least accept your gun rights. That list of places does not include Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.

You win a war by fighting on the front lines, not by claiming battle fatigue and laying in a tent in the rear.

Many gun owners have gone to Nevada and a
Big reason is the gun laws. But look at the population center in Nevada. Your line of thinking will lead to Nevada eventually having laws like California due to all the people in vegas. A few thousand dispersed freemen are no match for millions of bought votes in the Vegas area.

ed bernay
10-04-2011, 8:13 PM
This is the problem with trying to attack all bad laws at once. You don't have time to fully develop any one of them. This also highlights the reason why we're being careful with magazine regulations. The current attack we have in mind is not 2A based for a reason.

Make no mistake that this is the largest in court loss we've suffered. We're also now stuck with procedural problems in DC. Should NRA take the remand because they didn't have enough room to explore all the various different problems so that they can go get some of the registration requirements or should they go up (with even our supporting judges concerned that the record really isn't full on the key issues...)

This is the reason I've been unhappy with Heller II. Note that Heller II machinations are the reason that we were unable to get a hearing on the merits of the California Safe Handgun Roster in DC (Hanson.) Mr. Heller and his sidekick Dane B. were allowed by certain folks to set strategies they had no business being final arbiter upon... At least all three judges ignored the "escape valve..." :facepalm:

-Gene

I agree with your point that narrowly tailored cases are better from a strategy perspective. However do you think if this case was only about registration in the home or high cap mags or semi auto rifles that it would have turned out differently? I believe lower court judges will do everything they can to stall or minimize Heller/McDonald. Being narrowly tailored gives a case a better chance when in a higher court but I don't think it would have made a difference in this court. The judges would have ignored and made up excuses regardless of what Halbrook presented.

One other question, do you think it is just coincidence that Williams and Heller 2 were released a day apart or do you think the lower courts "talk" to each other when releasing their decisions. I don't know enough about the process to decide whether my tin foil hat is getting tight.

thanks

wildhawker
10-04-2011, 8:17 PM
What court, exactly, do you think these cases are targeted (and in the case of e.g. Gura, Jensen, Kilmer et al, actually competently crafted) for?

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 8:49 PM
What court, exactly, do you think these cases are targeted (and in the case of e.g. Gura, Jensen, Kilmer et al, actually competently crafted) for?Hopefully the same court that issued the Bond and Brown v. EMA rulings and not the one that continually bows to Slaughterhouse, Wickard, and Carolene with the Hippocratic "First, do no harm to the status quo" creed.

EchoFourTango
10-04-2011, 9:00 PM
Brady dribble is making me sick, I wish that we can pass stronger laws on what ever drug they are consuming.

trashman
10-04-2011, 9:03 PM
Sure seems like an avoidable self-inflicted loss by the NRA. And I agree with Gene, there isn't a useful path forward (either in remand or on appeal).

--Neill

livinofframen
10-04-2011, 9:24 PM
Heller II violates everything that Alan Gura discussed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52_27JeI9YY

Gura himself says that the biggest threat to our 2A rights is not hostile judges or anti-gun groups, but is in fact rash and unwise litigation. Right case, right plaintiff, right time with a thoughtful approach. 1-2 basic issues, TOPS. Taking the mixed bag approach to litigation is bound for failure and sets very ugly precedent to navigate in the future.

hoffmang
10-04-2011, 9:25 PM
I agree with your point that narrowly tailored cases are better from a strategy perspective. However do you think if this case was only about registration in the home or high cap mags or semi auto rifles that it would have turned out differently?

Yes. Of the three, the most ripe for challenge was actually the semiautomatic ban. Had the entire case focused on it, there might have been enough factual items about how these arms are used for self defense for Kavanaugh to be able to pick off one of the other two. Ex Post, it appears that there is more support that registration is not constitutional so with hindsight that would have been the first thing to shoot for. Magazines were basically not even addressed as all three judges put their hands up in the air... Keeping it focused would have also forced those who ruled against us to make up a lot more content than here were they got to dispose of the semiauto ban in a couple of paragraphs. An opinion too short like that would have been embarrassing. Here they get to hide it amongst all the other fud.

Reading between the lines, this is a 3-0 decision that you can't require long gun registration (and maybe all registration) outside of the usual 4473 or analogs like CA DROS for handguns.

Did you notice there was a fourth issue that ate up briefing space? That was the one that NRA lost 3-0 on and that was that DC didn't have the statutory authority... That even cost extra months on the appeal.

-Gene

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 9:26 PM
Dick Heller doesn't appear to fail living up to his first name.Mr. Heller being one isn't nearly as bad a problem as the courts

Milsurp Collector
10-04-2011, 9:37 PM
You win a war by fighting on the front lines, not by claiming battle fatigue and laying in a tent in the rear.



I think I read that quote somewhere. Was it Custer just before Little Bighorn, or was it Hitler in a bunker in Berlin in 1945?

It has been three years since Heller, and over a year since McDonald. Can you honestly say that things have improved significantly for California gun owners? Is there at least a trend toward improvement in the important issues? Or, if Gov. Brown signs the pending legislation, can you say that things are actually getting worse?

A strategy based on litigation (even when successful, and it hasn't been lately) and clever work-arounds can only achieve so much. Litigation is expensive, slow, and as we have seen there is no guarantee of success.

No amount of litigation, even if 100% successful, is ever going to make California's laws like Arizona's, or Nevada's, or Utah's, or Texas's.

trashman
10-04-2011, 9:52 PM
It has been three years since Heller, and over a year since McDonald. Can you honestly say that things have improved significantly for California gun owners?

[...]

A strategy based on litigation (even when successful, and it hasn't been lately) and clever work-arounds can only achieve so much. Litigation is expensive, slow, and as we have seen there is no guarantee of success.


And the alternative is....?

All the guys leading the charge have said since the beginning that this was a years-long effort to set things right.

There are no guarantees in this democracy, particularly when gunnies are a minority in California in every voting district except the most rural.

The success we've seen so far has been most obviously expressed in neutralizing guns as a political issue for lazy politicians (and journalists). You gotta think strategically (which this case clearly lacked) and keep the opposition defending on multiple fronts.

--Neill

Milsurp Collector
10-04-2011, 11:12 PM
And the alternative is....?

As I said earlier



If restrictive laws short of total bans passed in gun-unfriendly legislatures are going to be upheld by courts, clearly sensible gun owners should choose to live in the majority of places in the US that don't have such laws. Gun owners who willingly choose to live in gun-unfriendly cities/states can expect little sympathy from courts when those gun owners who willingly choose to live in those gun-unfriendly cities/states complain that they can only have guns A, B, or C but not X, Y, or Z, or that they are required to register their guns.

Rather than living in a gun-unfriendly place, praying and hoping year after year after year that "activist judges" will "legislate from the bench" (funny how that isn't so objectionable when the shoe is on the other foot) to give you what you want before you die from old age, just go to "real America" where a majority of the citizens and their elected legislatures support or at least accept your gun rights. That list of places does not include Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.


All the guys leading the charge have said since the beginning that this was a years-long effort to set things right.

There is no guarantee that things are going to be "set right". In fact, it looks pretty doubtful.


There are no guarantees in this democracy, particularly when gunnies are a minority in California in every voting district except the most rural.



We both agree that there are no guarantees, so let's stick with what is likely.

The California Legislature has been controlled by Democrats for the past 40 years. That is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

Democratic state legislators pay no political price for being anti-gun rights. In fact it is something of a plus for many of them. That is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, it is not likely that the California Legislature will enhance gun rights as has happened in several other states recently: Iowa and Wisconsin went shall-issue. Arizona and Wyoming eliminated the need for permits. Virginia and Ohio allowed concealed carry where alcohol is served. Etc. etc

What has the California Legislature been doing while other states have been loosening restrictions? California has been increasing restrictions, after Heller and McDonald. Even when they fail (AB962, AB1934) they come back and pass the same things again.

OK, so forget the Legislature, how about ballot initiatives in the home of Prop. 13. If there is general support among California voters for gun rights then California gun owners should be able to bypass the Legislature with ballot initiatives, right? Right? That path isn't even tried by the powers that be because everyone knows it is doomed to fail. That is not likely to change in the future.

That leaves litigation, to shove change down the throats of the majority of Californians who don't support loosening of California's gun laws. But that is slow, expensive, and hasn't been successful lately.

If a woman is married to a handsome, successful man who beats her, she can choose to accept the beatings and humiliation because her husband is so good-looking and rich, while trying (unsuccessfully) to change him, and rationalizing her situation (he doesn't beat me every day, and he doesn't hit me that hard), or she can leave and find a guy who maybe isn't quite as good-looking and rich, but is still quite acceptable, and who doesn't beat her and in fact treats her well. Everyone has a choice.

Rossi357
10-04-2011, 11:27 PM
It sounds to me like the supremes listened to His Royal Highness Alan Gura and decided not to take muddy cases.
I seriously doubt that the will rule that the 2nd ammendment stops at your front door.
Give them a good clean civil rights case and they will define "most notalby in the home". Then the legislatures and the lower courts will fall in line.
Just my opinion.

hoffmang
10-04-2011, 11:29 PM
Mr. Heller being one isn't nearly as bad a problem as the courts
Dude - you really need to relax. I don't blame the enemy when someone on our team decides to try a kamikaze raid up the middle against a bank of machine guns and gets mowed down. You're stridency doesn't reflect well on you either.

It has been three years since Heller, and over a year since McDonald. Can you honestly say that things have improved significantly for California gun owners? Is there at least a trend toward improvement in the important issues? Or, if Gov. Brown signs the pending legislation, can you say that things are actually getting worse?

Yes.

All residents of Sacramento have carry if they want it.

Notice how many more guns are meeting the "safe" requirements? Ever wonder why?

Why exactly did the CA DOJ vehemently argue that bullet buttons equipped semiautomatics are legal?

Any public housing handgun bans left?

Where is that Microstamping requirement, exactly?

How many more counties are at worst running sane processes and at best much more lenient in their carry license issuance?

How many cases weren't filed because the involved possession of firearms in the home?

The problem with the last question is that you're not a defense lawyer, prosecutor, or judge so you can't even see the biggest impact. Most of the points above are just off the top of my head.

One of the funniest part is that in the struggle to free California we keep accidentally freeing other parts of the nation first...

-Gene

safewaysecurity
10-04-2011, 11:35 PM
Where is that Microstamping requirement, exactly?
-Gene

Patent issues I thought.

Milsurp Collector
10-05-2011, 12:04 AM
Yes.

All residents of Sacramento have carry if they want it.

How about Los Angeles?
San Diego?
San Jose?
San Francisco?
Long Beach?
Oakland?
Anaheim?
Santa Ana?
Fremont?
Irvine?
Santa Barbara?
etc.
etc.
Sacramento. Woohoo! :hurray:


Notice how many more guns are meeting the "safe" requirements? Ever wonder why?

Can you go to a gun store in California and buy a Gen 4 Glock, or any other handgun not on the roster, without having to go through the "single shot exception" loophole? Do residents of Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, or most other states have to worry about a roster, or know what a "single shot exception" is?


Why exactly did the CA DOJ vehemently argue that bullet buttons equipped semiautomatics are legal?

Do residents of other states even know what a "bullet button" is, or have any use for one?


Any public housing handgun bans left?

I don't live in public housing, nor do a majority of California gun owners.


Where is that Microstamping requirement, exactly?

Again, residents of most states would say "what's microstamping, and what kind of state would pass such a ridiculous law?"


How many more counties are at worst running sane processes and at best much more lenient in their carry license issuance?

In other words, they reject your CCW permit application much more quickly and efficiently.


How many cases weren't filed because the involved possession of firearms in the home?

Don't know. How many times does anything not happen?


The problem with the last question is that you're not a defense lawyer, prosecutor, or judge...

That make two of us. ;)


One of the funniest part is that in the struggle to free California we keep accidentally freeing other parts of the nation first...

-Gene

The rest of the nation is already pretty free.

That's like Rosie O'Donnell saying "One of the funniest part is that in the struggle to make myself better looking I keep accidentally making Megan Fox better looking first..." :D

Falconis
10-05-2011, 12:17 AM
Yeah, but holes are being blown through all the ridiculous laws little by little. D-Day Normandy wasn't the first things the allies did either in that little incident from so long ago.

Falconis
10-05-2011, 12:22 AM
Can someone put this in stupid terms for those of us that are stupid. I got that it was a blow to 2A rights due to the Heller 2 team being dumb. So the questions I have are

Is the "assault weapons" ban repeal dead in the water?

Is the standard cap mag issue dead in the water?

If not --

Are there other appeals (concerning the certain semi auto ban and standard cap mag ban) that are able to go forward?

hoffmang
10-05-2011, 12:28 AM
How about Los Angeles?
San Diego?
San Jose?
San Francisco?
Long Beach?
Oakland?
Anaheim?
Santa Ana?
Fremont?
Irvine?
Santa Barbara?
etc.
etc.
Sacramento. Woohoo! :hurray:


Ignore the progress. Such a winning strategy you have there.

Can you tell me what the progress was before Heller and McDonald and Peña and Ventura and Sykes?

I'm also so happy for you that you'd prefer people in public housing to be disarmed. So charitable. Maybe you should move to Sacramento since your just selfish about the right to keep and bear arms?

Edited to Add: But I forget - you're already a quitter. You left instead of staying to fight. Can you stop lecturing the partisans that we should stop being the French resistance?

-Gene

Anchors
10-05-2011, 1:00 AM
So...is there anyway to stop Heller II from screwing things up on the big stage.
Is there anyone to step in and say "hey, let's stop while we're behind"?

Milsurp Collector
10-05-2011, 1:10 AM
Maybe you should move to Sacramento since your just selfish about the right to keep and bear arms?

Edited to Add: But I forget - you're already a quitter. You left instead of staying to fight. Can you stop lecturing the partisans that we should stop being the French resistance?

-Gene

No need to make ad hominem attacks Gene, it's beneath you.

The French Resistance was fighting an outside occupier and generally had the support of their fellow citizens. If a majority of Californians supported gun rights you wouldn't have the laws that you do. There is no outside occupying force imposing its will on California, it is the democratically elected government of California expressing the will of the majority of your fellow Californians. You both flatter yourself and dishonor the French Resistance (many of whom were tortured and killed) by comparing yourself to them.

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm just bringing some reality to the "WE ARE WINNING!" Kool-Aid party. I'm a native Californian. I grew up in SoCal, graduated from UCLA and USC, lived in Oakland and Pleasant Hill, worked all over the Bay Area. Most of my family still lives in California. I left California in the early 90s not because I'm a "quitter" or because of California's gun laws, but for a job opportunity. However, I would never consider willingly moving back to California under the current scheme of gun laws.

Once you have tasted real freedom, there is no substitute.

It breaks my heart (really) to see what you guys put up with, hoping for a gun law situation that will almost certainly never come, when real freedom is so close to you guys geographically and available right now, not a lifetime of "two weeks" from now.

press1280
10-05-2011, 1:48 AM
One curious thing about Heller II-the judges said they were relying on historical prohibitions, not a scrutiny standard. They said since registration had been around since the 1920's(referring to the Sullivan law), it was "longstanding". However, that time frame is well past the time of the 14th Amendment. Is "longstanding" supposed to be gauged from 2011 or from 1868?

CaliforniaLiberal
10-05-2011, 2:18 AM
No need to make ad hominem attacks Gene, it's beneath you.

The French Resistance was fighting an outside occupier and generally had the support of their fellow citizens. If a majority of Californians supported gun rights you wouldn't have the laws that you do. There is no outside occupying force imposing its will on California, it is the democratically elected government of California expressing the will of the majority of your fellow Californians. You both flatter yourself and dishonor the French Resistance (many of whom were tortured and killed) by comparing yourself to them.

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm just bringing some reality to the "WE ARE WINNING!" Kool-Aid party. I'm a native Californian. I grew up in SoCal, graduated from UCLA and USC, lived in Oakland and Pleasant Hill, worked all over the Bay Area. Most of my family still lives in California. I left California in the early 90s not because I'm a "quitter" or because of California's gun laws, but for a job opportunity. However, I would never consider willingly moving back to California under the current scheme of gun laws.

Once you have tasted real freedom, there is no substitute.

It breaks my heart (really) to see what you guys put up with, hoping for a gun law situation that will almost certainly never come, when real freedom is so close to you guys geographically and available right now, not a lifetime of "two weeks" from now.


We are all really happy that you have found your happy place from which to snipe at this amazing organization and it's heroic volunteer efforts to fight for 2nd Amendment Rights. Your posts are extraordinarily defeatist and do a good job of discouraging our efforts. Your sympathy is actually too much of a burden for us to bear. Keep it to yourself.

Your brand of "Realism" is only an assistance to the Anti-Gun Forces and your own ego.

Please don't belittle and tear down the best organized movement California has ever had for overturning the worst of CA guns laws. If you have some contribution to the discussion here, great. Make your comments. But you have no good reason and no right to take unfair shots and to whine and complain about the work still to be done.

I understand if you are impatient and want all of the bad gun laws to die right now today. We all would like that in our dreams. But that's not going to happen in the real world. It takes time, hard work, volunteers, and lots and lots of adult type patience to accomplish the great work we have undertaken. If you can't help, please move out of the way. We've got stuff to do here that means a lot to us.

Not to be overly rude but STFU if you can't assist in this great cause.

Kharn
10-05-2011, 2:43 AM
One curious thing about Heller II-the judges said they were relying on historical prohibitions, not a scrutiny standard. They said since registration had been around since the 1920's(referring to the Sullivan law), it was "longstanding". However, that time frame is well past the time of the 14th Amendment. Is "longstanding" supposed to be gauged from 2011 or from 1868?They relied on "longstanding" for registration, and then switched over to "not sporting" for magazines and then went "Brady says they're icky" for "assault weapons". :rolleyes:

OleCuss
10-05-2011, 5:14 AM
Hmm. . . People are getting a little testy!

Milsurp? The CGF board is really plugged into a bunch of stuff that you and I will never hear about. Gene may not be a defense lawyer, but he works with a bunch of them and along with wildhawker and a few others may have a better perspective on the status of the RKBA in California than anyone else - bar none. For that matter, it is possible that because of their combination of California expertise and their communications and coordination with non-California operators it just may be that they have the best perspective on RKBA status nationwide - but I suspect Gura and a few others may hold that distinction.

If I saw nothing happening and they told me we were winning I'd believe them.

Also, it is important to realize the emotional content when you effectively attack their avocation. These CGF board members are not only not paid for what they do, I'd bet they effectively donate much of their personal funds as well as their precious time in order to advance our rights and prevent injustices. I'd bet we hear of much less than 30% of the cases in which they are involved (at least peripherally) and it would not surprise me at all if we hear of less than 5%.

Pretty regular pessimism directed at these guys and (although I doubt intended) effectively attacking even their honesty really doesn't sit too well.

That said, I think people are taking inappropriate shots at you as well at this time. Leaving California couild happen for so very many issues and I really don't think Gene's labeling you a "quitter" was appropriate. Heck, some day I may leave California - but I seriously doubt that the current restrictions on the RKBA would play more than a miniscule part in the decision.

I hope this can get toned down a bit. I believe we are all good men and women devoted to the cause of liberty. No need to be attacking our friends or to denigrate the progress which has and is being made.

Falconis
10-05-2011, 5:27 AM
Hey Mil surp, why are you here? Granted, I don't know you so all I can do is assume. But it doesnt seem like you support anything CGF does, and you dont live in CA anymore.

ccmc
10-05-2011, 5:50 AM
The court majority basically said that as long as you are not completely prevented from owning firearms, many laws passed by legislators will survive intermediate scrutiny. They don't care that you want to own handguns that use 10+ round magazines. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of handguns that use 10 rounds or less you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. They don't care that you want an AR or AK. As long as you can own one or more of the hundreds of types of rifles, including bolt and lever-action rifles, or even semi-autos without "evil features" that aren't classified as "assault rifles", you aren't being prevented from keeping and bearing arms. Remember, to non-gun owners, "a gun is a gun", "they only have one purpose, to kill", blah blah.

If restrictive laws short of total bans passed in gun-unfriendly legislatures are going to be upheld by courts, clearly sensible gun owners should choose to live in the majority of places in the US that don't have such laws. Gun owners who willingly choose to live in gun-unfriendly cities/states can expect little sympathy from courts when those gun owners who willingly choose to live in those gun-unfriendly cities/states complain that they can only have guns A, B, or C but not X, Y, or Z, or that they are required to register their guns.

Rather than living in a gun-unfriendly place, praying and hoping year after year after year that "activist judges" will "legislate from the bench" (funny how that isn't so objectionable when the shoe is on the other foot) to give you what you want before you die from old age, just go to "real America" where a majority of the citizens and their elected legislatures support or at least accept your gun rights. That list of places does not include Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.

Interesting analysis. I wonder if the courts would view other hot button issues like abortion in the same light.

BTW I wouldn't lump CT in with those other states. CT's pretty much shall issue in practice. They shot down an attempt to impose a 10 round mag cap limit earlier this year. The weirdest thing about their gun laws is AKs in 7.62x39 are illegal, but otherwise they're much better than the other states you name. I agree that if you want good laws, then elect good legislators.

navyinrwanda
10-05-2011, 5:55 AM
When the judges say that the plaintiffs didn't offer sufficient proof that AR's and >10 magazines are useful for defense, sporting, and other lawful purposes, I'm curious about three things:

1. Did our side offer any evidence?
2. If so, what was insufficient about it? and
3. What proof would they/any Circuit court deem satisfactory as such that they'd agree with our side and write the opposite opinion from what they did?

This is the problem with trying to attack all bad laws at once. You don't have time to fully develop any one of them. This also highlights the reason why we're being careful with magazine regulations. The current attack we have in mind is not 2A based for a reason.

Make no mistake that this is the largest in court loss we've suffered. We're also now stuck with procedural problems in DC. Should NRA take the remand because they didn't have enough room to explore all the various different problems so that they can go get some of the registration requirements or should they go up (with even our supporting judges concerned that the record really isn't full on the key issues...)

This is the reason I've been unhappy with Heller II. Note that Heller II machinations are the reason that we were unable to get a hearing on the merits of the California Safe Handgun Roster in DC (Hanson.) Mr. Heller and his sidekick Dane B. were allowed by certain folks to set strategies they had no business being final arbiter upon... At least all three judges ignored the "escape valve..." :facepalm:

-Gene
This is simply disingenuous.

No action brought to date by the Calguns Foundation (or by SAF or NRA) has offered a significant evidentiary challenge to existing gun control regulations. All of these cases are being argued as matters of law. Yes, some amici have presented significant historical research, and a few have included relevant facts. But these facts have not been incorporated into the pleadings in a significant manner.

To suggest that this case would have had a different outcome if only fewer laws were challenged begs credulity. Of course the number of pages (or words) allowed in an appellate brief are limited. But longer and more focused legal arguments on fewer topics won't change the outcome when a decision is based upon the evidentiary record. Besides, there are no real limits on the volume of evidence entered before a trial court.

Indeed, the current gun rights litigation strategy - loose at trial and win on appeal - presupposes purely legal arguments. If anything, Heller II hopefully illustrates the risks inherent in such a fact-free approach.

Legal arguments were (and are) sufficient for litigating the true core of the Second Amendment. No amount of evidence could have altered the outcome of Heller I - and evidence won't play a role in establishing that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. The scope of the Second Amendment will be decided based upon legal arguments and historical research. This is why so much of the current obsession with levels of scrutiny is irrelevant. But questions that are not about scope, such as manner of carry regulations, licensing criteria, sensitive place limits, restrictions on specific arms and ammunition or on commercial transactions (to name a few), will be answered by examining evidence and balancing interests.

The gun control movement has long pursued a multidisciplinary approach calculated to affect popular and elite opinion. Notwithstanding their ultimate goal, the movement usually avoids direct confrontation. Rather than outlaw, their preferred tactic is to regulate. Much of their cause has been advanced by social science and criminology research conducted in academia and by government agencies and independent advocacy groups. They have closely followed the strategies of other public interest advocacy groups, such as those concerned about environmental pollution, cigarette smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, automobile safety, obesity and food safety, housing and homelessness, and labor and employment, etc.

Until Heller I, gun rights organizations fought back almost exclusively through political action. Afterwards, a second front opened in the courts. Yes, other civil rights have been vindicated through principled legal arguments (that were backed by elite opinion). But once overt and egregious barriers fell, real progress stalled. Further success hinged upon overcoming tacit restrictions, ostensibly reasonable regulations, and popular bias. The fight for gun rights is at the same point, and it will take more than great lobbyists or brilliant lawyers to liberate the minority of us who live under repressive regimes.

There is a significant new legal doctrine which reinforces the importance of an evidence-based strategy: the "substantial burden" test which is currently law in the Ninth Circuit. The Heller II panel also tacitly adopted a substantial burden test once they concluded that the government's evidence prevailed. While it's possible the Supreme Court could wipe this doctrine from the Federal Reports, it's also possible to defeat regulations that are illogical, inconsistent, or contrary to the public interest. But it takes evidence to prove that regulations have no valid purpose other than to restrict the exercise of rights. And that evidence can only be assembled through hard work conducted by reputable experts and repeated across multiple locations.

It makes sense for this work to be coordinated through existing organizations. Gun rights could then follow the successful path charted by other public interest advocates. But if existing organizations prove themselves to be shortsighted, then the only option may be independent action. The first step is a recognition that the current strategy - which depends entirely upon the wisdom of five old men in Washington, D.C. - is too risky.

Milsurp Collector
10-05-2011, 7:33 AM
Hey Mil surp, why are you here? Granted, I don't know you so all I can do is assume. But it doesnt seem like you support anything CGF does, and you dont live in CA anymore.

If you check my posts, the overwhelming majority are in the Curio & Relic/Black Powder forum. But like the car wreck that you just can't help but look at, I occasionally check out the 2A forum to see what is happening. I read much more than I post in the 2A forum, but sometimes if I have an opinion on a subject then I make a comment. As long as I follow the rules, all opinions, even contrary opinions, should be welcomed. That's what a forum is for. :)

I do support CGF and have contributed money, but it seems sometimes people are too obsessed with "winning" to look at the big picture and see what is really in their best interests.

This isn't a "fight" or "battle" or "war" or game, this is your life. Each "two weeks" that goes by living under the current California gun control scheme is two more weeks of your life gone.

I realize there are people who can't leave California because they are caring for an elderly parent or their mortgage is underwater or whatever, but the vast majority have a choice.

Those "fighting the war" call others who leave "quitters" etc. because they want gun owners to stay to help "fight the war", because that is in the fighters' best interest. I am more concerned about what is best for all of those individual California gun owners, and in my opinion what is best for them is to get out ASAP. I don't care if "fighters" call me names for expressing heresy in the 2A forum, somebody needs to say it.

Edit to add: OldCuss, I didn't read your post before I posted. I appreciate your comment. :)

Dreaded Claymore
10-05-2011, 8:05 AM
I just hope to the Gods that SCOTUS stops being the court of first appeal (or whatever you call it) for firearms issues. This is getting ridiculous. Hopefully the Heller Five (or more) will agree.

trashman
10-05-2011, 8:36 AM
I occasionally check out the 2A forum to see what is happening. I read much more than I post in the 2A forum, but sometimes if I have an opinion on a subject then I make a comment. As long as I follow the rules, all opinions, even contrary opinions, should be welcomed. That's what a forum is for. :)


[...]


I do support CGF and have contributed money, but it seems sometimes people are too obsessed with "winning" to look at the big picture and see what is really in their best interests.
Milsurp - at best what you've described is being a bad neighbor.

If your underlying assumption is that gunnies should abandon california and move elsewhere (and it is, as you pointed out above), then your "opinion" on the efforts to make things better in California through the courts isn't really an opinion of much use -- since you disagree that we should be trying to change things in the first place.

So, yeah - I'd say that's a "quitter's attitude". Are you a quitter? I don't really care. But the idea that your abandonment 'opinion' should be "welcomed" by the forum "as long as you follow the rules" is like saying I should welcome you coming to take a poop on my living room floor.

It's just something you're doing for attention, and it's not terribly neighborly. And the fact that you refer to the 2A subforum as a "train wreck" really underscores your real motivation: you're here to rubberneck, gawk and gloat.

--Neill

CaliforniaLiberal
10-05-2011, 8:37 AM
If you check my posts, the overwhelming majority are in the Curio & Relic/Black Powder forum. But like the car wreck that you just can't help but look at, I occasionally check out the 2A forum to see what is happening. I read much more than I post in the 2A forum, but sometimes if I have an opinion on a subject then I make a comment. As long as I follow the rules, all opinions, even contrary opinions, should be welcomed. That's what a forum is for. :)

I do support CGF and have contributed money, but it seems sometimes people are too obsessed with "winning" to look at the big picture and see what is really in their best interests.

This isn't a "fight" or "battle" or "war" or game, this is your life. Each "two weeks" that goes by living under the current California gun control scheme is two more weeks of your life gone.

I realize there are people who can't leave California because they are caring for an elderly parent or their mortgage is underwater or whatever, but the vast majority have a choice.

Those "fighting the war" call others who leave "quitters" etc. because they want gun owners to stay to help "fight the war", because that is in the fighters' best interest. I am more concerned about what is best for all of those individual California gun owners, and in my opinion what is best for them is to get out ASAP. I don't care if "fighters" call me names for expressing heresy in the 2A forum, somebody needs to say it.

Edit to add: OldCuss, I didn't read your post before I posted. I appreciate your comment. :)


Some of us actually love California, even with its present system of gun law. There are a million reasons to choose to move elsewhere and a million more reasons to choose to stay and fight for the restoration of 2nd Amendment Rights. For those of us staying and fighting your words are weighted with discouragement and defeatism. These words are not helpful. Perhaps on an anti-gun forum they would be welcome. They are not helpful, even when you claim that they represent "Realism."

I live in Sacramento County. What is REAL is that this is now a Shall Issue County. You seem to have no idea how important this is, what an amazing victory that would not ever have been believed possible even six months before it was REAL. YOU may find Shall Issue in Sac County worthy of your sarcasm:clap:, but for those of us who live here it's a freakin Christmas Miracle.:jump:

AND it is a harbinger of REAL CalGuns victories to come.

Your support and contributions to CalGuns are heartily welcomed. Don't give you the right to hack at our roots and piss in our cheerios.

It is not for you to say what our best interests are. We say that it is our best interest to choose to stay and fight for our rights. Obsession with winning has proven to be a successful path to achieving a goal in the past, we'll keep it for now, thank you. If you say it is in Your best interest to leave the fight, fine. But you don't have any right to knock those who don't make the same choices that you do.

".....I am more concerned about what is best for all of those individual California gun owners, and in my opinion what is best for them is to get out ASAP. I don't care if "fighters" call me names for expressing heresy in the 2A forum, somebody needs to say it."

Wow. Are you freakin kidding??

So you can stand on our rope hollering "You'll never make it! You can't win! Give up now!" and then claim to have our self interest at heart? And Then claim that your words should be welcomed??? That you speak out of "concern for what is best for us???" Wow.

The problem with this is not that it's heresy, or even that you presume to know what is in our best interest, but that it's working against everything we stand for, everything that we volunteer and contribute our time, treasure, and our two weeks over and over again. We can see the goal even if you cannot. We will keep working and progressing and building and yes, winning, while you sit on the sidelines yelling discouragement and defeat.

So please, if you can not contribute to the Cause for 2nd Amendment Rights in California, find some other forum where your words are welcome and counted helpful. Perhaps some forum that is working for the advancement and final victory of CA gun control and the death of the 2nd Amendment.

Or stay here and join us. State your opinions, make your comments. It's possible to question what is going on in the 2nd Amendment Rights Movement without being a defeatist, without claiming that our Cause is hopeless. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Just stop screaming "Fire!" and telling everyone to stampede for the exits.

OleCuss
10-05-2011, 8:44 AM
I like having some pessimists around. They make you check your perspective to ensure it comports with reality.

I've not seen FGG around for a while (maybe he has been and I've just not seen) and I miss him/her. I like it when he and navyinrwanda challenge the legal concepts - I learn a bit more that way. I'll continue to enjoy kcbrown, Milsurp, etc. even though I don't share their current assessment of where things are or where they are going.

I like diversity. I find it rather boring when everyone looks, acts, and thinks alike. As long as things aren't too obnoxious I'll welcome disagreement - just nice if the disagreement can be done without being disagreeable.

Rock6.3
10-05-2011, 8:48 AM
Talk about a train wreck, this discussion has lost all perspective on the subject of Heller II vs DC.

End the threadjacking please. Take the BS to general discussion where it belongs. Take the personal attacks home with you, none of us want to see them.

yellowfin
10-05-2011, 8:55 AM
Ok, so back to the case at hand. Can the case simply sit and then some other challenge be brought against the semi auto ban according to the court's blueprint for it, which essentially agreed but claimed lack of proper support of evidence? And as stated previously, can the courts be made to stop being FDR's lapdog with their "First, overturn no law" mantra?

M. D. Van Norman
10-05-2011, 9:01 AM
Gun rights could then follow the successful path charted by other public interest advocates.…

There is a fundamental difference between what the right-to-arms movement is attempting and what other advocacy groups have achieved.

trashman
10-05-2011, 9:10 AM
I like having some pessimists around. They make you check your perspective to ensure it comports with reality.

Totally agree, and this board has a good number of bright, intelligent, and thoughtful folks who do disagree and definitely add value to the discussion.

What seems to be on the rise in the last year, however, are a larger number of folks whose version of 'pessimism' is just taunting from the sidelines.

If one completely disagrees with the idea that we should even try to improve things for gunnies in California, then why in the world would you join a discussion about that topic unless it's just to rile people up?

--Neill

Nick Justice
10-05-2011, 9:13 AM
The court gave great weight to the "officer safety" issue. But it also assumes that the general public is a static entity. That we will just sit there, or maybe at most run for cover if a psyco starts shooting. Nowhere do they consider that one or more of us may be, or even should be, prepared to fire back.

The decision also pointed out that the case brough by the plaintiffs was lacking in evidence (as was the defence).

From a local newspaper article quoting a judge: "We do not want to make a decision in favor of gun rights, have a Tucson-Stockton-Columbine-like tragedy occur shortly thereafter, and then have the media all over us, blaming us for the tragedy." They put their personal image and reputation before the constitutional rights of the people in this area of the law. They shamefully realize it, and do not want to muster up the courage to rule in favor of the right. They cave to media pressure. And the media loves it.

Maestro Pistolero
10-05-2011, 9:35 AM
The court gave great weight to the "officer safety" issue. But it also assumes that the general public is a static entity. That we will just sit there, or maybe at most run for cover if a psyco starts shooting. Nowhere do they consider that one or more of us may be, or even should be, prepared to fire back.This is an important point. It is an attitude which reveals that more value is placed on the life of the officer than the life of the peaceful citizen who has an identical need and right to defend his life.

Regardless of the frequency with which a citizen may be likely to encounter a violent criminal, one that criminal is encountered, it is the same criminal, with the same level of threat to life and limb, requiring the same equipment (magazines, etc) to oppose the attack.

ccmc
10-05-2011, 9:41 AM
Regardless of the frequency with which a citizen may be likely to encounter a violent criminal, one that criminal is encountered, it is the same criminal, with the same level of threat to life and limb, requiring the same equipment (magazines, etc) to oppose the attack.

Yes, yes and yes! Great point.

Centurion_D
10-05-2011, 10:05 AM
Well I guess this doesn't bode well for us stuck in the PRK. I was praying that one day I could pass down my registered semi auto's to my son someday...now I fear that day will never come. :mad:

Maestro Pistolero
10-05-2011, 10:06 AM
Well I guess this doesn't bode well for us stuck in the PRK. I was praying that one day I could pass down my registered semi auto's to my son someday...now I fear that day will never come. :mad:

Depends on what state he lives in when the time comes.

Fictitious Simily
10-05-2011, 10:15 AM
By their reasoning we'll end up with single shot 22's end the end

Centurion_D
10-05-2011, 10:18 AM
Depends on what state he lives in when the time comes.

Very true....but I was hoping future generations might be able to own un-neutered semi auto rifles...at least those stuck behind enemy lines like my son here in the PRK.

BigFatGuy
10-05-2011, 10:26 AM
By their reasoning we'll end up with single shot 22's end the end

Are you crazy? Do you know how much damage those assault sniper pistols can do?

Mulay El Raisuli
10-05-2011, 11:04 AM
Have any of you read the dissent by KAVANAUGH, (Circuit Judge)? I think he got it right. I think it's 51 pages in length, longer than the majority opinion.


He's a guy who has clearly actually read the Constitution. He has also given us just about as broad a hint as there could be as to what the next step should be; Appeal to SCOTUS.


They acknowledged it, said AR15's and standard caps pass the test, but ignored it and ruled the way they wanted to anyway. It's 100% proof that they're being dishonest and clearly biased, ruling based on the outcome they want no matter what the reality is.


Gee, how dare you label those two correctly?


Excellent work by Kavanaugh, but why couldn't he bring over one of the other two judges to sign onto this?


Because they're fanatics.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
10-05-2011, 11:13 AM
Anyway, the basic problem is shown on p. 39 of the pdf.


We apply intermediate scrutiny precisely because the District's laws do not affect the core right protected by the Second Amendment.


The reason this is the problem is because the majority opinion is that the 'core right' is to "keep" guns only "in the home." That "and bear" counts for just as much is NOT accepted jurisprudence at this time.

ALL the objections we've pointed out here will stay invalid until that gets fixed.


The Raisuli

SMOKEYMOUNTAIN
10-05-2011, 11:27 AM
Just read the Ginsberg majority opinion. Interesting. Two-part intermediate scrutiny test.

The flaw I see in the defense's rationale is that they are arguing more under rationale basis review in terms of fit.

Just quoting statistics and legitimate governmental policy interests is plain circular reasoning. They have to prove the burdens actually placed on 2A rights (i.e. gun range time requirement, eye sight requirement, etc.) actually further these policy purposes.

Under IS, the burden of proof is on the government. Even if the DC ordinances are withing the Council's power and were not promulgated in an ultra vires manner, I believe they failed to prove that these local regulations further an important government interest narrowly tailored to further those exact interests.

I miss con law :(

ed bernay
10-05-2011, 12:54 PM
Yes. Of the three, the most ripe for challenge was actually the semiautomatic ban. Had the entire case focused on it, there might have been enough factual items about how these arms are used for self defense for Kavanaugh to be able to pick off one of the other two. Ex Post, it appears that there is more support that registration is not constitutional so with hindsight that would have been the first thing to shoot for. Magazines were basically not even addressed as all three judges put their hands up in the air... Keeping it focused would have also forced those who ruled against us to make up a lot more content than here were they got to dispose of the semiauto ban in a couple of paragraphs. An opinion too short like that would have been embarrassing. Here they get to hide it amongst all the other fud.

Reading between the lines, this is a 3-0 decision that you can't require long gun registration (and maybe all registration) outside of the usual 4473 or analogs like CA DROS for handguns.

Did you notice there was a fourth issue that ate up briefing space? That was the one that NRA lost 3-0 on and that was that DC didn't have the statutory authority... That even cost extra months on the appeal.

-Gene

I don't know enough about the judges to agree that the other judges may have been able to switch views. With a few exceptions, I don't have much faith that lower court judges care about the 2nd amendment. Live and learn for Heller's legal team. Thanks for your insight. If they appeal to SCOTUS can they refocus the appeal on registration only?

As you could have guessed by now, my view is that the requirement for firearms registration (in addition to 4473) in the home for possession of firearms in common use should be the issue to test scrutiny. If we can't win strict scrutiny for that narrowly tailored issue, then what's the likelyhood we'll get it all.

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 1:02 PM
It makes sense for this work to be coordinated through existing organizations. Gun rights could then follow the successful path charted by other public interest advocates. But if existing organizations prove themselves to be shortsighted, then the only option may be independent action. The first step is a recognition that the current strategy - which depends entirely upon the wisdom of five old men in Washington, D.C. - is too risky.

Responding to the above, I think your judgment presupposes you're aware of all elements of the current strategy. While I concede that much of the legal strategy isn't exactly cloaked in secrecy, there's more going on than you're giving credit for here.

Your penultimate judgment (not quoted but indicated in the above) - that more focus should be placed on evidence gathering and analysis - is noted (though, ultimately, as you say, most of the legal challenges [we're involved in directly] are prosecuted as matters of law); however, until such time that the gun owner community decides to fund the sort of [costly] research I presume you speak to, we'll remain with fewer resources to allocate than the other side of the argument.

-Brandon

markm
10-05-2011, 4:31 PM
[QUOTE=navyinrwanda;7267691]This is simply disingenuous.

No action brought to date by the Calguns Foundation (or by SAF or NRA) has offered a significant evidentiary challenge to existing gun control regulations. All of these cases are being argued as matters of law. Yes, some amici have presented significant historical research, and a few have included relevant facts. But these facts have not been incorporated into the pleadings in a significant manner.

To suggest that this case would have had a different outcome if only fewer laws were challenged begs credulity. Of course the number of pages (or words) allowed in an appellate brief are limited. But longer and more focused legal arguments on fewer topics won't change the outcome when a decision is based upon the evidentiary record. Besides, there are no real limits on the volume of evidence entered before a trial court.

(navyinwranda quoted in part.)

Hello navyinwranda,

Your post is excellent. Most of what you wrote has merit. Your money-quote is copied here: "The first step is a recognition that the current strategy - which depends entirely upon the wisdom of five old men in Washington, D.C. - is too risky."

Wildhawker, hoffmang, et allia, are clearly fighting this legal/political war with the army they have; if they could afford a bigger and better legal/political army, I believe they would order it to "march to the sound of the cannon." I know I will be corrected if my assumptions are wrong.

Both sides of this strategy/tactics debate are correct. Some people are thinking philosophically, while the other team is working from a reality based plane-of-thought.

California Reality:

California has been over-run by illegal immigration. The political war over illegal immigrant voters has been won because one side vacated the battlefield. California will be radically neo-Marxist for many years to come because illegal immigrants vote. There are parts of central Kalifornia that are Mexican in culture and control. Here is one of many Victor Davis Hansen articles on the subject: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070311.html

The only hope of victory for enumerated rights is through the courts. The political front, in Kali, is a dead end.

Thank you Calguns for "chipping" away at unconstitutional law and regulation.
Sadly, it is our only tactic (In Kali anyways).

I can't wait to retire to Wyoming (I must be a quiter). I hope the people of Wyoming accept a right-wing refugee from Mexifornia.

Reality sucks, and California is in big trouble.

markm

Definitions:
1) Neo-Marxist: a person whose ideology is radically socialist, but does not do the Stalin-thing by murdering political dissidents.

2) Penultimate: second to last.

3) Politics: war conducted by other means; bloodless war.

OleCuss
10-05-2011, 5:06 PM
I've seen it as a division of labor.

CGF and SAF work litigation and informative service almost exclusively - which partially explains the emphasis on this forum.

NRA and its affiliates work the political side of the equation - and dabble in litigation.

wildhawker
10-05-2011, 6:19 PM
I've seen it as a division of labor.

CGF and SAF work litigation and informative service almost exclusively - which partially explains the emphasis on this forum.

NRA and its affiliates work the political side of the equation - and dabble in litigation.

FWIW, I wish the productivity of the legislative/political (and research commissioning/funding) side of the scale was at least respectable; it would make the 'dabbling' in litigation by some easier to swallow.

-Brandon

OleCuss
10-05-2011, 8:59 PM
I like how polite you were in your phrasing.

I'm a member of a certain organization that I mostly love but would dearly love to see re-direct its efforts more productively.

mdimeo
10-06-2011, 12:19 AM
FWIW, I wish the productivity of the legislative/political (and research commissioning/funding) side of the scale was at least respectable; it would make the 'dabbling' in litigation by some easier to swallow.

The great value of the NRA to me is the stuff they stop, not the stuff they push through. They're not capable of a lot of subtlety, but just keeping congressmen in purplish districts looking nervously over their shoulders, is hugely valuable.

Sure wish they'd stay the hell out of the courts, though. Every single case is at least a little bit screwed up.

hoffmang
10-06-2011, 12:20 AM
No action brought to date by the Calguns Foundation (or by SAF or NRA) has offered a significant evidentiary challenge to existing gun control regulations.

You're kind of right. We usually create our own (favorable) facts and governments either fold or stall. It is annoying that we're so good at it that DC ran away from us for example: http://ia700408.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.135622/gov.uscourts.dcd.135622.20.1.pdf

Milsurp: How populous is the state you moved too? I bet we've actually freed a population that is at least materially as large. But you're right. All those people who got their rights back don't matter because you're carping from out of state is the correct hurdle. I mean, owning an AR or AK in California or having a carry license is worthless. You're going to turn your rifles and licenses in since they don't matter at all, right?

I'm patiently waiting.

-Gene

wildhawker
10-06-2011, 1:12 AM
The great value of the NRA to me is the stuff they stop, not the stuff they push through. They're not capable of a lot of subtlety, but just keeping congressmen in purplish districts looking nervously over their shoulders, is hugely valuable.

I think it's reasonable to expect more from the second largest member organization in the United States- especially one that claims to be the political pros and "own" Congress.

With national gun politics significantly more favorable as a venue than is California, it's always perplexing to see how little real effort is made to advance (and the corresponding production).

-Brandon

nick
10-06-2011, 1:55 AM
I think it's reasonable to expect more from the second largest member organization in the United States- especially one that claims to be the political pros and "own" Congress.

With national gun politics significantly more favorable as a venue than is California, it's always perplexing to see how little real effort is made to advance (and the corresponding production).

-Brandon

While I have no insight into the inner workings of the NRA, I think I may field this one based on my observations from all the years that I've been *****ing about the Second Amendment online and offline :)

The NRA caters to the majority of gun owners. They don't want to be seen as the "extremists". Well, to most, or, at least, a significant number of the gun owners, you, I, and a half of the people on this forum ARE the extremists. Remember when the people owning hunting rifles and shotguns had no problem whatsoever with these evil, evil black rifles being banned? And who needs to carry a gun? What are you, a wannabe cop? These aren't the questions you ONLY hear from the antis.

Let's face it - most people are morons. It's a bit harsh, but, in my opinion, true. They don't think or plan ahead. They don't see things for what they are, but for what they're told they are. They are generally ignorant on most subjects, especially History, which could, otherwise, tell them what the crap they're spoonfed can and does lead to. They listen to and believe politicians' speeches, or at least consider and evaluate those speeches as anything other than the movement of the air from politicians' throat into the ether. Gun owners simply represent the same slices of population as the general populace. Most of us don't think ahead. We don't support someone wanting something we ourselves don't care about. We believe that politicians and anti zealots can be sated, if only we give them what they want at this moment, and they'd then leave us alone with our Winchester Model 70's, and maybe an occasional Remington 742. We consider those who aren't satisfied with the status quo extremists. The NRA doesn't want to be labeled that. It wants to be considered "reasonable". It thinks that you can negotiate with the devil, and win forever.

Of course, the problem with that thinking is that they ARE labeled as "extremists" anyway, and the offerings they make on the altar of "being reasonable" are never enough, and will never be enough.

With that said, there's a place for that, as well. To give a parallel with the civil rights movement, there had to be someone considered "reasonable" (MLK), whose ideas were to be accepted once the ideas of an "extremist" (say, Malcolm X) were too hard to swallow. Then one can build up from there, which is what I believe you guys are doing, with the NRA trying to define the minimum standard. The only danger here is to set that minimum standard too low, and I think they might be doing just that.

sandman21
10-06-2011, 7:44 AM
Check out page 94 of the opinion, it's KAVANAUGH dissenting on the registration argument for public safety. He torpedoed the public safety argument for registration.

Footnote 19 of the dissent (pdf page 94), it speaks directly to registering to exercise a constitutionally recognized fundamental right Originally Posted by Footnote 19 of Heller II dissent
Moreover, citizens may not be forced to register in order to
exercise certain other constitutionally recognized fundamental
rights, such as to publish a blog or have an abortion. See Volokh,
Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense, 56
UCLA L. REV. at 1546 (discussing impermissibility of registration
requirements applied to free speech and abortion rights). In
concluding that D.C.’s handgun registration requirement might
satisfy intermediate scrutiny, the majority opinion notes that the
government may require registration for voting. See Maj. Op. at
18. But those laws serve the significant government interest of
preventing voter fraud. The majority opinion also cites car
registration laws. Id. Of course, there is no enumerated
constitutional right to own a car. Perhaps more to the point, those
laws help prevent theft and assist recovery of stolen cars. No
similar interest justifies gun registration laws.
D.C.’s registration law thus does not appear to be sufficiently
tailored to advance a compelling or important government
interest for purposes of the heightened scrutiny tests. That
said, D.C. alludes to the possibility that other rationales might
be asserted to support a registration requirement. Therefore,
Oddly, the majority opinion says that a registration
requirement is permissible for handguns but might be
impermissible for rifles or other long guns. See id. That approach
gives potentially greater constitutional protection to long guns than
to handguns even though Heller held that handguns warrant the
highest constitutional protection.

We don’t have an enumerated constitutional right to own property(i.e. a car)? :facepalm:

Registration of a vehicle for use on public highways is a tax, if a vehicle is not going to be used on the public highways or on public land; the vehicle is not required to be registered.

yellowfin
10-06-2011, 7:48 AM
While I have no insight into the inner workings of the NRA, I think I may field this one based on my observations from all the years that I've been *****ing about the Second Amendment online and offline :)

The NRA caters to the majority of gun owners. They don't want to be seen as the "extremists". Well, to most, or, at least, a significant number of the gun owners, you, I, and a half of the people on this forum ARE the extremists. Remember when the people owning hunting rifles and shotguns had no problem whatsoever with these evil, evil black rifles being banned? And who needs to carry a gun? What are you, a wannabe cop? These aren't the questions you ONLY hear from the antis.

Let's face it - most people are morons. It's a bit harsh, but, in my opinion, true. They don't think or plan ahead. They don't see things for what they are, but for what they're told they are. They are generally ignorant on most subjects, especially History, which could, otherwise, tell them what the crap they're spoonfed can and does lead to. They listen to and believe politicians' speeches, or at least consider and evaluate those speeches as anything other than the movement of the air from politicians' throat into the ether. Gun owners simply represent the same slices of population as the general populace. Most of us don't think ahead. We don't support someone wanting something we ourselves don't care about. We believe that politicians and anti zealots can be sated, if only we give them what they want at this moment, and they'd then leave us alone with our Winchester Model 70's, and maybe an occasional Remington 742. We consider those who aren't satisfied with the status quo extremists. The NRA doesn't want to be labeled that. It wants to be considered "reasonable". It thinks that you can negotiate with the devil, and win forever.

I think that accurately describes the situation with the NRA as an organization on the national level 5-10 years ago but not today. From what I gather it probably still applies in PA and NY at the membership and local leadership level, however, the former having thought there's nothing more they want and the latter because they believe there's nothing they can win.

M. D. Van Norman
10-06-2011, 8:07 AM
With national gun politics significantly more favorable as a venue than is California, it’s always perplexing to see how little real effort is made to advance.…

Oh, Brandon! There you go pointing toward the underlying political truth. :rolleyes::D:o:(

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 8:20 AM
From a local newspaper article quoting a judge: "We do not want to make a decision in favor of gun rights, have a Tucson-Stockton-Columbine-like tragedy occur shortly thereafter, and then have the media all over us, blaming us for the tragedy." They put their personal image and reputation before the constitutional rights of the people in this area of the law. They shamefully realize it, and do not want to muster up the courage to rule in favor of the right. They cave to media pressure. And the media loves it.
This is why it will take a long time for gun rights to be advanced. The judges don't want to be the ones "responsible" for any negative outcomes.

Who cares how good the arguments our side come up with are if the judges won't rule in our favor even if we are right.

Maestro Pistolero
10-06-2011, 11:11 AM
This is why it will take a long time for gun rights to be advanced. The judges don't want to be the ones "responsible" for any negative outcomes. Unless those negative outcomes include innocent citizens being murdered because they were prohibited from defending their lives. Then they are perfectly fine with it.

Nick Justice
10-06-2011, 4:26 PM
Another thing that really burns me is that so any opinions quote "facts" from the Brady people and all the other anti groups, but totally ignore the evidence offered from our side. You read the opinions, and the justices write it's as if we didn't file a brief or even show up for arguments. We offer them data and reports from such sources as the FBI and the DOJ, and they totaly ignore them. Very frustrasting.

AngelDecoys
08-08-2012, 3:25 PM
Old thread. Just wondering if this had been appealed?

Gray Peterson
08-08-2012, 3:33 PM
Old thread. Just wondering if this had been appealed?

Went back to district court.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-08-2012, 3:38 PM
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 4, 2011 10:49am EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court on Tuesday upheld a District of Columbia law that bans semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines in Washington, finding that the restrictions were constitutional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-guns-ban-idUSTRE7933MB20111004

Of course they did...

They don't want any form of opposition on their own front lawn.

A.W.D.

AngelDecoys
08-08-2012, 3:44 PM
Went back to district court.

Thanks. Any idea on time before it heads back up? Case is very broad in scope. Can or will it be narrowed to just a couple of items?

nicki
08-08-2012, 3:56 PM
Is this a case that could possibly get to the SCOTUS in 2013?

Before everyone gets upset, bear in mind that if memory serves me, we lost on MacDonald all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Nicki

krucam
08-09-2012, 8:02 AM
Is this a case that could possibly get to the SCOTUS in 2013?

Before everyone gets upset, bear in mind that if memory serves me, we lost on MacDonald all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Nicki

Not likely, especially since it's now back at DC District.

The DC District Docket for Heller II is at:
http://ia600502.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350.docket.html

The recently submitted 3rd Amended Complaint is there as #43. Also:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350/gov.uscourts.dcd.132350.43.0.pdf

The DC Circuit ruled out "Assault Weapons" (their words, not mine) last Spring among other things, remanding the registration requirements back to District.

Since then, the DC Council (with coaxing from Emily Miller?) has eased some of the restrictions.

Interesting with this Amended Complaint, is the going after those who are legally blind. They artfully dance around the obvious, bringing up a legally blind individual's harm in not being able to possess a potential heirloom/collector firearm to preserve for descendants. Genius...

Prohibitions on home possession without Training, one handgun per 30 days, is also challenged.

The still-onerous registration requirements (required for purchase) is a primary focus in this, along with the prohibition on registration of "Assault Weapons". The vague Assault Weapon definition includes magazine capacities over 10 also.

Wherryj
08-09-2012, 9:06 AM
I'm not lawyer, but doesn't this part right here give us all the reason we need to appeal it up? They are basically saying that just because no one opposed the unconstitutional laws before now, that the 2A no longer applies to it and it is perfectly valid? So all someone who wants to circumvent the constitution needs to do is keep a law on the books long enough for the Constitution to no longer matter... right?

Seems to me that this in and of itself is unconstitutional. :)

Is this the "Squatting the Constitution" clause?

AngelDecoys
08-09-2012, 11:15 PM
Not likely, especially since it's now back at DC District.

I was expecting for us to lose all the way up, but didn't expect it to be sent back to DC District. How long there before this can go up again?

The still-onerous registration requirements (required for purchase) is a primary focus in this, along with the prohibition on registration of "Assault Weapons". The vague Assault Weapon definition includes magazine capacities over 10 also.

This is why i was asking. While the case might be putting too many eggs in 1 basket, it seems to me Heller 2 is the fastest method of expanding liberty nationwide the soonest. In light of recent events (SB249), its all the more important

Pardon me for not knowing, can the NRA-ILA still ask for en-banc?

Not to be cynical, but did the NRA-ILA just drop the ball? We wouldn't want them to miss a fund raising opportunity. :rolleyes:

Maestro Pistolero
08-10-2012, 12:51 AM
So, and this is just by way of comparison, there are still some antiquated and racist 'Jim Crow' laws on the books in some States that simply are not enforced or in some cases known about.

Does this mean that because they have been on the books so long that the civil rights they violate or even remove are not protected by the Constitution?

Nice precedence, that should blow up in their face.

How long were the handgun bans in DC and Chicago on the books? 20, 30 years? How weak.

This case is very disconcerting. To have such a bad ruling with so few steps left is a nightmare. I have to believe that this won't survive SCOTUS but the feeling in my stomach is not good. Somebody please tell me something hopeful here.

krucam
08-10-2012, 5:19 AM
I was expecting for us to lose all the way up, but didn't expect it to be sent back to DC District. How long there before this can go up again?

It has to run the course in DC District first. Again, the 3rd Amended Complaint was just filed, we have a ways to go...


Pardon me for not knowing, can the NRA-ILA still ask for en-banc?

DC Circuit Rule #35 (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/RulesDecember2011LINKSandBOOKMARKS4.pdf) (Pg 127/177) states (regarding en banc rqst):
35(a) Time Within Which to File. In all cases in which a party is one of those listed in FRAP
40(a)(1)(A) - (D), the time within which any party may seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is 45
days after entry of judgment or other form of decision. In all other cases, any petition for panel
rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or
other form of decision. The time for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will not
be extended except for good cause shown.
How long were the handgun bans in DC and Chicago on the books? 20, 30 years? How weak.

This case is very disconcerting. To have such a bad ruling with so few steps left is a nightmare. I have to believe that this won't survive SCOTUS but the feeling in my stomach is not good. Somebody please tell me something hopeful here.

Stephen Halbrook is the Attorney??

Maestro Pistolero
08-10-2012, 2:41 PM
But on the issue of the so-called assault weapon ban, there will be no reconsideration unless appealed to the supreme court, right? This is a horrible precedent as of now.

krucam
08-10-2012, 5:53 PM
But on the issue of the so-called assault weapon ban, there will be no reconsideration unless appealed to the supreme court, right? This is a horrible precedent as of now.

I'd have to re-read the Circuit ruling, but as I recall the Assault Weapon claims were shot down (disapproved), only registration hurdles being remanded back to District.

I'll verify mañana...