PDA

View Full Version : Parker and the DC Handgun Ban repeal


hoffmang
03-30-2007, 10:16 AM
Say Uncle has a good thread (linked from Instapundit) about whether Republican attempts to overturn the DC handgun ban is bad for Parker.

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/03/30/parker_counsel_agrees_with_me_on_hutchisons_bill/

There are a lot of different ways to understand this, but its very interesting no matter what.

Also - from the comments on that blog, there is a podcast with Alan Gura who was lead counsel.

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/alangura_whatafteremparkervdcem_20070328.mp3

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 10:36 AM
Great info Gene.....thanks.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 11:01 AM
What the hell is going on here...

The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, S.1001 will effectively kill Parker v. DC.

Why are Republicans trying to introduce legislation that will moot Parker? And why the hell is the NRA asking for people to support this legislation?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2814

Do we want the precedence of Parker to disappear? I would sure hope NOT.

There are 41 co-sponsors to this Bill.....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1001

If these Senators do not realize what they are doing we sure as hell better let them know.

tgriffin
03-30-2007, 11:43 AM
staying tuned....... there is more than meets the eye here.

luvtolean
03-30-2007, 1:26 PM
Why are Republicans trying to introduce legislation that will moot Parker? And why the hell is the NRA asking for people to support this legislation?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2814

Please, please, please, tell me this isn't because it's a Cato case and not an NRA one.

Otherwise, I have to go find some NRA crap to burn in effigy.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 1:32 PM
Please, please, please, tell me this isn't because it's a Cato case and not an NRA one.

Otherwise, I have to go find some NRA crap to burn in effigy.

Well, they did try to adjoin and takeover Parker in the beginning, but I hope they are not playing politics with this case.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 1:47 PM
Well, they did try to adjoin and takeover Parker in the beginning, but I hope they are not playing politics with this case.

we had discussion on the same topic a while back.

the point is that the Parker vs DC case, while great, is not the end of discussion. The case can still be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and if at any point along the way, the case gets hijacked by the antis and a Democrat activist judge strikes it down, the precedence would have so much negative ramification, that another Prop H can be passed and enforced EVERYWHERE in the USA.

NRA is presumable doing this to restore the rights of the DC residents without gambling on the bigger picture of the gun rights across the country.


at least that's my take on it. YMMV

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 1:53 PM
CalNRA, you may be right, but the key point is this: there WILL BE a Supreme Court case on the 2A. It will happen sometime, probably soon. We can't stop it from happening. If it isn't Parker, it's likely to be a criminal defendant with a public defender. All the same negative facts will still exist, but the defendant will be a bad person and his legal representation will be the government standard quality.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 1:58 PM
CalNRA, you may be right, but the key point is this: there WILL BE a Supreme Court case on the 2A. It will happen sometime, probably soon. We can't stop it from happening. If it isn't Parker, it's likely to be a criminal defendant with a public defender. All the same negative facts will still exist, but the defendant will be a bad person and his legal representation will be the government standard quality.

I don't like the wording of Parker Vs DC:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52676

the "REGISTERED HANDGUN" part. that would legitimaize Kali-style handgun registration in other states. do you want that to happen?

the problem with the gambling with PARKER VS DC is that if it were to fail ANYWHERE, further gun-ban laws can go through without voter participation. Then SF, for that matter any jurisdiction that's under the SCOTUS can ban guns like platic shpping bags and just as easily. scary thoughts indeed.

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 2:12 PM
CalNRA, you're not thinking logically here.

As I said, if it isn't Parker, it's going to be some other case. That's a fact.

If it is some other case, we might get a ruling that has nothing to do with registration. The ruling might say, "It's not an individual right. Go ahead and make whatever law you want."

As you say: "the problem with the gambling with PARKER VS DC is that if it were to fail ANYWHERE, further gun-ban laws can go through without voter participation. Then SF, for that matter any jurisdiction that's under the SCOTUS can ban guns like platic shpping bags and just as easily. scary thoughts indeed." Our situation is like being a gladiator: They don't want to go into the arena, but they don't have any choice, either. We're going to have a Supreme Court case on this. Any risk that you describe that is attached to a Supreme Court case will apply to Parker or any future case. And I can promise you, if it isn't Parker it will be a case with a criminal defendant, who is a drug dealer or whatever, with a public defender, just like we had with Miller back in 1939.

Think this through.

Fact: There WILL BE a 2A Supreme Court case, probably in the near future.

Fact: That case could be Parker, or it could be some other case.

Opinion: Any case other than Parker is very likely to be a criminal defendant drug dealer with a public defender. Do you understand what that means, and why that's so different from the Parker situation?

Or do you disagree with my two facts there?

We can't avoid a Supreme Court 2A case. The only thing we can do is influence which case it may be. Do you understand this?

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 2:17 PM
I agree with your two facts completely.

for me, in my personal opinion, I would rather have the 2nd Amendment situation in its status quo right now with the impending election. I don't want a case so important as this to be started, and then immediately followed by the takeover of an anti-gun administration.

The wording of Parker vs DC, if it were to stand, can give legal precedence for the congress(dem dominated) to enact serious registration legislations that can make the Canadain law look silly. The Dems waited 12 years, and do you think they would sit there and do nothing when they are given a legal go-ahead to implement registration schemes? registering ALL the handguns in the United States? that's a gun-banner's wet dreams come true.

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 2:27 PM
Cal,

The registration question isn't before Parker. That comment is dicta. All that is before the court in Parker is, "is the 2A an individual right?" and "does a complete ban on functional firearms infringe the 2A?"

There will be some other case that determines whether registration is legitimate under the second amendment.

-Gene

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 2:40 PM
for me, in my personal opinion, I would rather have the 2nd Amendment situation in its status quo right now with the impending election.

We don't have a choice! It's out of our control. That's the point I'm making. There could be some public defender who is appealing some other case right at this very moment. Let's say that Parker gets killed by Congress. Barak "Ban them All" Obama or Hilary could be president in 2008 and then a 2A case will come before the court. That's possible and we have no control over that. The only thing we have control over is the NRA, and telling them to not pass any legislation right now.

I don't want a case so important as this to be started, and then immediately followed by the takeover of an anti-gun administration.

Ok, if Parker doesn't go up, then there wll be some criminal case in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012, with Hilary sitting as president, appointing a mangy dog to the Supreme Court. If it's not Parker now, it will be something else, soon. We can't stop that!

The wording of Parker vs DC, if it were to stand, can give legal precedence for the congress(dem dominated) to enact serious registration legislations that can make the Canadain law look silly. The Dems waited 12 years, and do you think they would sit there and do nothing when they are given a legal go-ahead to implement registration schemes? registering ALL the handguns in the United States? that's a gun-banner's wet dreams come true.

You're not making any sense. The 2A is going to have its day in the Supreme Court in the very near future. It could have its day with Parker, or it could have its day with a drug dealer and a machine gun. That's the only choice we have. All your points about registration don't matter because they will be true no matter which case it is.

And aside from that, all rights are subject to regulation. We're never going to see a court (at any level) decide that gun ownership is beyond all regulation. Free speech is regulated, voting is regulated, religious institutions are regulated, everything is. Welcome to the reality of living in a country with laws and a government.

I'm having a hard time staying rational right now, this type of discussion is so upsetting to me. We really are our own worst enemy.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 2:44 PM
seeing how everything I say is not making sense to you, I'm out. enjoy the rest of your Friday Sunshineglocker.

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 3:20 PM
Cal,

The registration question isn't before Parker. That comment is dicta. All that is before the court in Parker is, "is the 2A an individual right?" and "does a complete ban on functional firearms infringe the 2A?"

There will be some other case that determines whether registration is legitimate under the second amendment.

Exactly.

Sgt Raven
03-30-2007, 4:06 PM
Right now we're the frog in a pot of hot water. We can stay there while they slowly turn up the heat. We can stay there or they can turn the heat up too fast and we'll jump out. I'd take my chances with Parker as its the best case we have. If they find against us, we'll have our line in the sand. Otherwise they'll keep moving the line on us. We can keep bleading from a thousand cuts or we can push our chips in and say "all in"! Its time "to fish or cut bait". :cool:

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 4:09 PM
Right now we're the frog in a pot of hot water. We can stay there while they slowly turn up the heat. We can stay there or they can turn the heat up too fast and we'll jump out. I'd take my chances with Parker as its the best case we have. If they find against us, we'll have our line in the sand. Otherwise they'll keep moving the line on us. We can keep bleading from a thousand cuts or we can push our chips in and say "all in"! Its time "to fish or cut bait". :cool:

you don't win a poker game by showing the other side your hand of cards.

dang it I know I said I was out, I lied. Now I'm really out.

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 4:14 PM
Cal,

Sometimes you can win by brandishing. Parker is brandishing and I say we its time we put up or shut up on the second amendment means what it says.

If we lose, then Texas can pass a law nullifying all Federal firearms laws in Texas because the second amendment must then be a right of the states.

-Gene

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 4:19 PM
then we would be boned. We ain't got a 2nd A here. :(

Cal,

Sometimes you can win by brandishing. Parker is brandishing and I say we its time we put up or shut up on the second amendment means what it says.

If we lose, then Texas can pass a law nullifying all Federal firearms laws in Texas because the second amendment must then be a right of the states.

-Gene

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 4:25 PM
There's so much scholarship on it these days. Even super-liberal anti-gun law professors are reluctantly admitting, the 2nd means what it says. There will never be a case as good as Parker, but there are likely to be many others as bad as Miller if we don't get a Supreme Court ruling from Parker.

Richie Rich
03-30-2007, 4:32 PM
I say now is the time and this is the case.. Non criminal case, no state laws, nothing negative. Just some good, law abiding folks (and a wealthy guy bankrolling it) trying to get their constitutional rights restored.

Lets get it in and ruled on once and for all.

The political climate for a decision like this is not going to get any better in the forseeable future.

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 4:43 PM
There will never be a case as good as Parker, but there are likely to be many others as bad as Miller if we don't get a Supreme Court ruling from Parker.

Huh?

Have you actually READ Miller? Miller in conjunction with Parker being upheld by SCOTUS is probably the best-case scenario that any gun owner could hope for.

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 5:09 PM
I'm not saying the Miller outcome was bad. It sort of avoided the whole thing by saying a sawed-off isn't covered by the 2A. Ok, whatever.

What I am saying is that the Miller facts were bad bad bad. He was a criminal. He had a public defender. He had a non-PC gun. He had criminal intent. He was dead. Those things shouldn't matter in how the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional right, but of course they matter. They matter a lot.

In the Parker case, it's a civil plaintif, not a criminal defendant. The plaintif is a cop, who wants an ordinary gun for lawful self-defense of his home. It's a great legal team. It's the best 2A case we will ever have, because it was designed from the beginning to be that, by people who know what they are doing. They carefully selected plaintifs who would look good (literally), who are diverse, who have lawful and good intentions, etc.

The political climate for a decision like this is not going to get any better in the forseeable future.

That's right. It will never be better than this. We're going to have to face this and this is the best opportunity we will EVER have. Many would prefer not to face it, but that's not an option. If the Supreme Court doesn't look at the Parker case, then they will end up looking at a criminal defendant with a public defender.

The Supreme Court is like the Superbowl. We need to have the best guys on our team, because the other team is going to fight hard. The Parker team is great. If they don't play, some other team will play, and that team will be a criminal and a public defender. That team will lose.

Builder
03-30-2007, 5:52 PM
In addition, we should not forget that in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ: 494 U.S. 259 the word "People" as used in the 2nd Amendment is: "[T]he 'people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." This contradicts those arguments that the 2nd is a states' right or a militia (collective) right. Follow-up with http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndArgs.html concerning the unorganized militia (individuals) in the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks,
Builder

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm not saying the Miller outcome was bad. It sort of avoided the whole thing by saying a sawed-off isn't covered by the 2A. Ok, whatever.

Not exactly. It said that since there were no defendants to provide any evidence supporting that it was a military firearm, they had no other choice but to rule that they did.

And if you read it closely, it seems like they really wanted to be presented evidence that proved otherwise, just that they did not receive it.


What I am saying is that the Miller facts were bad bad bad. He was a criminal. He had a public defender. He had a non-PC gun. He had criminal intent. He was dead. Those things shouldn't matter in how the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional right, but of course they matter. They matter a lot.

In the Parker case, it's a civil plaintif, not a criminal defendant. The plaintif is a cop, who wants an ordinary gun for lawful self-defense of his home. It's a great legal team. It's the best 2A case we will ever have, because it was designed from the beginning to be that, by people who know what they are doing. They carefully selected plaintifs who would look good (literally), who are diverse, who have lawful and good intentions, etc.

Who the defendants are really has no bearing as to the outcome of Miller and how that case applies to us. A ruling from SCOTUS is just that, it holds precedent regardless of what the initial trial might have been for and only answers the greater questions involved. If there is no greater question to be answered, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it.

I do agree that the legal team representing Parker is ideal for the case, whereas another case might not be so fortunate...


In addition, we should not forget that in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ: 494 U.S. 259 the word "People" as used in the 2nd Amendment is: "[T]he 'people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." This contradicts those arguments that the 2nd is a states' right or a militia (collective) right.

I'm sorry, but this very argument cancels itself out as not applying to individuals but to classes of people, or a certain collective right. Have you read US v. Verdugo-Urquidez?

The argument holds that:
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.

And further:


The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.


As a matter of fact, the dissent in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez also states in referece to the majority:
"According to the majority, the term "the people" refers to "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

So, I'm sorry, but the argument that this case supports protections of 'the people' as an 'individual' right is weak, but it seems to be a collective right that could be claimed by an individual to be abused by federal actions.

Not that I disagree with you, but the arguments presented in this case do not support what you are saying. In other words, find a better case to reference.


Follow-up with http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndArgs.html concerning the unorganized militia (individuals) in the 2nd Amendment.


I read that link. It offers nothing substantive and is much lighter reading than I expected or hoped for.

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 10:51 PM
Not exactly. It said that since there were no defendants to provide any evidence supporting that it was a military firearm, they had no other choice but to rule that they did.

Ok, that's exactly my point. The Miller "team" was a horrible team: a public defender and a dead bootlegger. If you've got a bad team representing the 2A, that's not the best way to get the best outcome, is it? Do we want another team like the Miller team, or do we a team like the Parker team? That's our choice. If Parker doesn't get to play, then the next team up will certainly be a public defender and a drug dealer.

And if you read it closely, it seems like they really wanted to be presented evidence that proved otherwise, just that they did not receive it.

Right, exactly my point. They didn't get it because Miller was DEAD and he had a public defender who had fifty other cases piled up. We were lucky that the Miller outcome was as non-bad as it was, given that he was a bad person, had bad representation, had a bad gun, and was dead.

Who the defendants are really has no bearing as to the outcome of Miller and how that case applies to us.

Oh come on, there's no way that a guy like Miller and his public defender are as good as the Parker crew for carrying the torch of the 2A. Who the defendant is does matter, and who the lawyer is matters a lot. Yes you're right, it makes no difference on the applicability of the precedent but it has a lot to do with what the court will find, ie, what that precedent will be.

A ruling from SCOTUS is just that, it holds precedent regardless of what the initial trial might have been for and only answers the greater questions involved.

Right it does, and that's why it's so important to go in with the right defendant / plaintif, the right facts, and the right legal team, to establish the right precedent. Miller had those things all wrong and got a ruling that wasn't actually bad for us; it could have been a disaster. Parker has those things all right. If Parker doesn't go all the way, then the next group will be a the drug dealer / machine gun / public defender, and that's not going to give us the best shot at the precedent we want. It will establish a precedent, but it could be something truly bad. Judges listen to the arguments that are made, and a public defender is not in a position to give the 2A the defense it should have. The Parker team is in that position. And judges are human. You'll notice that the Parker team asked for the right to own an ordinary handgun, not a machine gun? The same logic would apply to either, but they picked the one that was going to get them the best outcome. They also picked solid, good people, who look good. All that stuff matters.

I do agree that the legal team representing Parker is ideal for the case, whereas another case might not be so fortunate...

You know what kind of case we're going to get if it isn't Parker. It will be either my drug dealer example, or it will be an incompetent kook like that Wayne Fincher with a machine gun. That's like betting your life savings on a horse with a limp.

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 11:22 PM
Miller's counsel didn't show up. He telegramed in that he couldn't make it.

Miller is of another era where America was mildly facist. SCOTUS are scholarly enough to know that. More importantly, Miller makes it clear that the second amendment is an individual right - otherwise the case wouldn't have been heard for lack of standing.

-Gene

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 11:33 PM
Wow, I didn't even realize that his counsel didn't show up. That's yet another bad circumstance. My point in all this is, we don't want Miller: The Sequel. In this era, a rag-tag group of a dead criminal and an absent public defender armed with an ugly gun is going to get us a stinker of a precedent. And guess what, a case like that is on its way. There are public defenders arguing the 2A right now, and sooner or later one of those cases will climb its way up. We all know, getting a favorable ruling on the 2A ("it is an individual right") is going to be a challenge even with the best crew possible. It's going to be a disaster if it's another Miller-style crew. Whatever crew it is, that's the precedent we're going to have to live with the rest of our lifetimes. This will happen, and it will be either the Parker crew, or a Miller-style crew or a Wayne Fincher type person.

Let's look at it another way: If a Supreme Court had to rule on the 2A (is it an individual right?), which case would you rather bet on:

1. A civil plaintif with a clean record, asking to own a normal gun, with a great legal team

or

2. A drug dealer who was busted with a machine gun, who has a public defender

They're both asking the same question: "Is the RKBA an individual right?" Do you think the court result will be the same regardless of if it's 1 or 2 above?

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 11:41 PM
Sunshine,

I'll agree that Parker is a better case than a felon in possession bringing the same claim, but in the modern day - no SCOTUS second amendment case will be brought without adequate counsel.

As to Miller, the fact that there was no one representing Miller means that that case is less precedential than everyone on both sides makes it out to be.

-Gene

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 11:44 PM
Sunshine, you're not getting it. It doesn't matter who the defendant is, if the question is the same, the answer will be, and so will the precedent it sets.

And son of Miller IS a case we want to see.

SunshineGlocker
03-30-2007, 11:59 PM
in the modern day - no SCOTUS second amendment case will be brought without adequate counsel.

I hope that is the case. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know this stuff. Maybe in today's world it's not realistic for an overworked public defender with a big stack of plea bargains to get through to take a case up through the courts.

Sunshine, you're not getting it. It doesn't matter who the defendant is, if the question is the same, the answer will be, and so will the precedent it sets.

Again, I am not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong, but I have a very hard time believing that. Supreme Court justices are human beings with prejudices and opinions, and those must come into play in their rulings. They are also politicians to some small degree and they know that this type of case is politically charged and closely watched. Justice Alito is being called "machinegun Sammy" or whatever because of a case. In all my dealings with the world, I have seen how important biases and perceptions are, even when those things have nothing to do with the facts. Maybe none of this applies at the exalted level of the Supreme Court.... but I'm skeptical on that. If it's a crack dealer with a machine gun, omewhere in the back of the justice's mind, he's going to be saying to himself, "am I really going to tell the world that a crack dealer who is toting a machine gun is not guilty of something?" Whereas in the Parker case, he's going to be saying to himself, "am I really going to tell the world that an off-duty cop in a dangerous neighborhood isn't allowed to keep a loaded pistol at home?"

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 12:07 AM
Sunshine,

Public Defenders do not take cases to SCOTUS. A single SCOTUS case can take half of a lawyers working hours for 18 months or more in the modern era. I have close friends who have won SCOTUS cases (Borland v. Lotus) and it was relatively all encompassing. Miller was a beast of 1939, not 2010.

Crack dealers toting machine guns don't get certatoria in the first place.

-Gene

radioactivelego
03-31-2007, 12:08 AM
we had discussion on the same topic a while back.

the point is that the Parker vs DC case, while great, is not the end of discussion. The case can still be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and if at any point along the way, the case gets hijacked by the antis and a Democrat activist judge strikes it down, the precedence would have so much negative ramification, that another Prop H can be passed and enforced EVERYWHERE in the USA.I say better than taking small cuts and blows for the next 20 years... let's just go ahead and start that revolution engine that's been sitting in the back of the garage catching dust right back up. That is, if any tyrannist (it isn't Democrat or Republican anymore... just look at the co-sponsors of the repeal bill) is crazy enough to strike it down via SCOTUS.

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 12:09 AM
radio,

I once heard a very good explanation of when it was time to walk in the streets with rifles; it was when everyone else already was.

We're really far from that (thank goodness.)

-Gene

SunshineGlocker
03-31-2007, 12:16 AM
Well, if it's as you say, then I am a bit more reassured.

However... our culture here in the US is not getting any more pro-RKBA as the years go by. The SCOTUS isn't going to be any more favorable to us ten or twenty years from now. I say, we need to go for it now, and the Parker case seems like a great case.

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 12:21 AM
I'm not so sure that our culture hasn't been unduly influenced by the boomers. It may be that post boomer, the self reliance of the younger generations may re-invigorate firearms ownership.

-Gene

Mssr. Eleganté
03-31-2007, 12:21 AM
Again, I am not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong, but I have a very hard time believing that. Supreme Court justices are human beings with prejudices and opinions, and those must come into play in their rulings. They are also politicians to some small degree and they know that this type of case is politically charged and closely watched. Justice Alito is being called "machinegun Sammy" or whatever because of a case. In all my dealings with the world, I have seen how important biases and perceptions are, even when those things have nothing to do with the facts. Maybe none of this applies at the exalted level of the Supreme Court.... but I'm skeptical on that. If it's a crack dealer with a machine gun, omewhere in the back of the justice's mind, he's going to be saying to himself, "am I really going to tell the world that a crack dealer who is toting a machine gun is not guilty of something?" Whereas in the Parker case, he's going to be saying to himself, "am I really going to tell the world that an off-duty cop in a dangerous neighborhood isn't allowed to keep a loaded pistol at home?"

I believe you are totally correct. Like you said, even though it shouldn't matter who the defendant is, it does matter.

Look at Scalia. He is supposed to be a strict "originalist". But if the case involves hippies or drugs, he all of a sudden thinks the Federal government has all kinds of power not specified in the Constitution. Or as Cato's Roger Pilon says, Scalia is a "fair weather Federalist".

And look at the Kelo case. I'll bet if New London, CT wanted to build an Indian casino on the land instead of a pharmaceutical research facility, homes and a new state park, more of the justices would have voted in favor of Susette Kelo.

SunshineGlocker
03-31-2007, 12:26 AM
And look at the Kelo case. I'll bet if New London, CT wanted to build an Indian casino on the land instead of a pharmaceutical research facility, homes and a new state park, more of the justices would have voted in favor of Susette Kelo.

Just based on my observations of the world and human nature, that's what I think. "The city of New London has legalized prostitution and we want your property so these guys can build our first brothel where directionless daughters of the city can find their first jobs." Vs. "The city of New London would like to help cure sick people and create an industry of the future by creating a medical research facility." Those kinds of things, which are irrelevant to the question, have to make some difference, unless these justices are some kind of legal super-humans.

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 12:41 AM
I'm not disagreeing that plaintiffs matter, but the Kelo plaintiffs had at least $250K spent on their behalf. Regular criminals do not get that sort of money spent unless they are facing a death sentence and that will be the issue - not the second amendment - in those cases.

-Gene

Draven
03-31-2007, 1:05 AM
Even if the DC gun ban is overturned by the legislature, Parker will still be a valid case-

There are people in and around DC who have felonies on their criminal record and have had their second amendment rights completely abridged (i.e. they can no longer own firearms) due to the statute. Thus, even if the statute is removed, people who were convicted under that statute were prosecuted on the basis of an unconstitutional law.

fatirishman
03-31-2007, 8:11 AM
Not the case we want: no felons. Please, let's pick our fights in the right order. If I had my way there would be no NFA, no GCA, anyone could legally walk into any store (no FFLs either) or other place with a willing seller and pay cash for a machinegun with no records. But, that isn't realistic - hell, I think 2/3's of this forum is cringing (sp?). Parker is a nearly perfect case (would have preferred Chicago, so as to be unable to duck incorporation and the record of the 14th, but you takes what yous can gets). Interestingly, to comment about the comments upthread, I think the politics are trending mildly against us right now, but the culture is moving our way - the boomers reacted to violent turmoil in the 60's and the crack wars of the 90's by wanting more gun control. Those of us that have grown up with the failed policies of the Brady's are far less likely to believe the .gov, and the CCW revolution has allowed a whole new generation to grow up seeing guns for self-defense as normal. Look at how far the gay rights movement has come, simply by allowing people to get used to open homosexuals. Likewise, as more and more of us become open gun owners, esp. those of us that live, work, etc. in "professional" environments, the more difficult it is to view gun owners as scary rednecks.

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 9:54 AM
I'll say it again - under the Munsingwear Doctrine if a case gets mooted while appealable, the case is vacated. That means it never happened.

The one reason this isn't an incorporation case is to make it simple. The next bite at the apple will ride on the coattails of "Parker says this is an individual right, the Freedman's Act spoke plainly that the right to arms was part of that incorporated under the 14th, and look at all the evidence for incorporation." I very much like the stair step approach.

-Gene

383green
03-31-2007, 10:04 AM
If I had my way there would be no NFA, no GCA, anyone could legally walk into any store (no FFLs either) or other place with a willing seller and pay cash for a machinegun with no records. But, that isn't realistic - hell, I think 2/3's of this forum is cringing (sp?).


I'm not cringing, but then I describe myself as a "radical anarcho-libertarian fundamentalist". :D

xenophobe
03-31-2007, 4:49 PM
I'm not disagreeing that plaintiffs matter,

I am, to an extent. Miller was not a law abiding guy, to say the least... If the Miller representation were able to submit any documentation or proof that short barreled shotguns were in use by the military, they would have likely ruled for him, and short barreled shotguns as described and regulated by the NFA may have been nullified by the courts.

bwiese
03-31-2007, 4:52 PM
I believe Cases, a bit after Miller, said that if Miller had validity, its stance on military weapons would likely included just about anything, since - esp in latter part of WWII - just about any weapon was used by 'special operations' forces, etc.

383green
03-31-2007, 5:10 PM
I believe Cases, a bit after Miller, said that if Miller had validity, its stance on military weapons would likely included just about anything, since - esp in latter part of WWII - just about any weapon was used by 'special operations' forces, etc.

Interesting. On that basis, even smooth-bore sheet metal single-shot pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator) would be kosher, and those things make so-called Saturday Night Specials look like fine examples of gunsmithing art.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Musee-de-lArmee-IMG_1038.jpg/180px-Musee-de-lArmee-IMG_1038.jpg

FreedomIsNotFree
03-31-2007, 5:22 PM
I'm not so sure that our culture hasn't been unduly influenced by the boomers. It may be that post boomer, the self reliance of the younger generations may re-invigorate firearms ownership.

-Gene

You just hit the nail on the head. Its really amazing when you look at the fact that baby boomer children are more conservative than their peace, love and tied dye parents. Most of the military that has volunteered to serve are children of baby boomers.

I honestly believe that it is my generation, the children of baby boomers, that will correct the selfish paths of our parents and bring this country back from the brink....at least that is my hope.

I have great hope for this generation....I see them rising to the occasion on par with the WW2 generation.