PDA

View Full Version : Cleaning up the decades old clutter


vantec08
10-13-2011, 4:30 AM
http://www.sitnews.us/1011News/101211/101211_reform_act.html

Election year looms for hatch

Librarian
10-13-2011, 11:38 AM
HR 58 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00058:)

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act'.

Sitting in a House Judiciary sub-committee since January, 161 cosponsors.

HowardW56
10-13-2011, 11:47 AM
161 Co-sponsors....

vantec08
10-13-2011, 2:10 PM
Yea, going after the easy stuff.

hoffmang
10-13-2011, 9:15 PM
This is bad. NRA wants to moot Lane v. DC now that DC caved?

Sooner or later NRA will convince Mr. Gura that it's not worth fighting the government on our behalf when our team just chooses to undermine him....

-Gene

ocmsrzr
10-14-2011, 8:09 AM
I am trying to learn basic chess here...Lane vs. Holder is better for us because it address Rosters as well as out of state purchase, where as HR 58 just covers out of state purchases?

Or are there deeper concerns?

Crom
10-14-2011, 9:07 AM
I think the "The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act" is a good thing as it would liberate millions of Americans to purchase from out of state FFL's and avoid the "must ship to your home state FFL" situation.

I am puzzled by Gene's cryptic response. I know the goal is to build a robust set of 2A case law in the federal courts--that is of supreme importance. But if congress want's to liberate us sooner, then so be it. We can always litigate the issue down the road... unless the Supreme Court is against us [4-5, or worse]?

I reread the Lane v. Holder First Amended Complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.vaed.265997/gov.uscourts.vaed.265997.8.0.pdf), and as far as I can tell it's only challenging the Interstate transaction prohibitions. Nothing to do with the roster.

Untamed1972
10-14-2011, 9:15 AM
I think the "The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act" is a good thing as it would liberate millions of Americans to purchase from out of state FFL's and avoid the "must ship to your home state FFL" situation.

I am puzzled by Gene's cryptic response. I know the goal is to build a robust set of 2A case law in the federal courts--that is of supreme importance. But if congress want's to liberate us sooner, then so be it. We can always litigate the issue down the road... unless the Supreme Court is against us [4-5, or worse]?


I think the point is that getting a court ruling establishes something as a right and precludes future legislation.

Mooting a case with legislation now still leaves it in a nebulous "rights vs priviliges" area where the legislation can be altered or repealed later. So the legislation is not really a protection where a court ruling establishes a firm boundary.

vantec08
10-14-2011, 9:25 AM
I think the point is that getting a court ruling establishes something as a right and precludes future legislation.

Mooting a case with legislation now still leaves it in a nebulous "rights vs priviliges" area where the legislation can be altered or repealed later. So the legislation is not really a protection where a court ruling establishes a firm boundary.

Thats my take on it . .. . .case law would enshrine it, legislation would be challenged/changed/altered.

Crom
10-14-2011, 10:20 AM
I want Lane v. Holder to succeed as well as all the other civil 2A cases seeking to dismantle racist/oppressive gun control and expand the 2A right.

But consider the flip side of legislation too.

Let's say that congress liberates us and the anti's sue... Great! I enjoy my freedoms sooner and the Anti's can litigate the issue, perhaps all the way up to the Supreme court where in theory we would still win.

Untamed1972
10-14-2011, 10:44 AM
I want Lane v. Holder to succeed as well as all the other civil 2A cases seeking to dismantle racist/oppressive gun control and expand the 2A right.

But consider the flip side of legislation too.

Let's say that congress liberates us and the anti's sue... Great! I enjoy my freedoms sooner and the Anti's can litigate the issue, perhaps all the way up to the Supreme court where in theory we would still win.

But at that point the litigation would be defended by Gov't lawyers. Do you really want Gov't lawyers defending your 2A rights in court?

Untamed1972
10-14-2011, 10:55 AM
Thats my take on it . .. . .case law would enshrine it, legislation would be challenged/changed/altered.

I think the other issue is that a SCOTUS ruling protects the right from ALL levels of legislation (fed, state and local) where just changing the federal law doesn't offer any protection against state and local infringement which will just require further litigation.

hoffmang
10-14-2011, 6:07 PM
Should we lose Lane v. Holder, nothing stops congress form fixing it then. However, mooting a case with a high likelihood of success before it succeeds only pushes us on to harder court cases without positive previous jurisprudence.

There are plenty of hard things to get in the courts that would be easy or much easier in Congress. Legislation should focus on those. Federal preemption of long gun registration anyone?

-Gene

BigDogatPlay
10-14-2011, 6:11 PM
Should we lose Lane v. Holder, nothing stops congress form fixing it then. However, mooting a case with a high likelihood of success before it succeeds only pushes us on to harder court cases without positive previous jurisprudence.

And, perhaps, that's a part of why HR58 is bottled up in committee.... or at least I can hope. Lots of good bills go to committee to die because while the cause may be attractive, the timing just isn't right yet.

:)

There are plenty of hard things to get in the courts that would be easy or much easier in Congress. Legislation should focus on those. Federal preemption of long gun registration anyone?

-Gene

I can give an AMEN.... any others?

dantodd
10-14-2011, 8:26 PM
If the courts decide Rosters are illegal no one can have a roster.

If the legislature decides Rosters are bad they can undecide just as easily.

Also, if an attorney spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating a case it is highly likely that his plaintiff will never be able to pay his bill should the suit be mooted by the legislature. If that same attorney wins the case he will be paid by the losing party. I can think of no better place for my tax dollars to go than to pay Alan Gura.

Crom
10-14-2011, 10:38 PM
If the courts decide Rosters are illegal no one can have a roster.

If the legislature decides Rosters are bad they can undecide just as easily.

Also, if an attorney spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating a case it is highly likely that his plaintiff will never be able to pay his bill should the suit be mooted by the legislature. If that same attorney wins the case he will be paid by the losing party. I can think of no better place for my tax dollars to go than to pay Alan Gura.

Yup. Agree on both points. :)

But at that point the litigation would be defended by Gov't lawyers. Do you really want Gov't lawyers defending your 2A rights in court?

This is true. The best we have are suing the Gov right now. :D And if we stay true to the civil rights path, then we must remain the plaintiffs in the cases for a decade or two.

vantec08
10-15-2011, 4:21 AM
If the courts decide Rosters are illegal no one can have a roster.

If the legislature decides Rosters are bad they can undecide just as easily.

Also, if an attorney spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating a case it is highly likely that his plaintiff will never be able to pay his bill should the suit be mooted by the legislature. If that same attorney wins the case he will be paid by the losing party. I can think of no better place for my tax dollars to go than to pay Alan Gura.

Yes. Matters of specific rights in the hands of politicians means that ANYTHING is subject to political whim or fancy du jour. My fantasy is SCOTUS issues ONE ruling on all 2nd matters that says "dont mess with it, bureaucrat/politician, or YOU will be on the hook for conspiracy to violate civil rights."