PDA

View Full Version : Can previous SCOTUS rulings be overturned?


mikestesting
12-12-2012, 3:31 PM
With Obama having the possibility to turn SCOTUS into a lefty majority, what happens to all of the rulings in favor of the 2A if that becomes a reality?

Can the new court hear a new case that challenges the 2A and rule differently than what the court ruled in Heller and McDonald, thus reversing the direction that our courts are taking with the 2A?

Or do current SCOTUS members have to respect prior rulings?

Stewdabaker23
12-12-2012, 3:33 PM
Not sure but this is Obama-nation, so anything can happen.

Gray Peterson
12-12-2012, 3:51 PM
With Obama having the possibility to turn SCOTUS into a lefty majority, what happens to all of the rulings in favor of the 2A if that becomes a reality?

Can the new court hear a new case that challenges the 2A and rule differently than what the court ruled in Heller and McDonald, thus reversing the direction that our courts are taking with the 2A?

Or do current SCOTUS members have to respect prior rulings?

That's certainly a possibility, but I have doubts on that per se.

When there have been SCOTUS overturns, they tend to be on behalf of lesser liberty to greater liberty. For example: Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Pace v. Alabama being overturned by Loving v. Virginia. Bowers v. Hardwick being overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. FEC v. McConnell overturned by Citizens United v. FEC.

Direct overturns against a decision protecting an individual liberty is almost unheard of.

That idea that a decade from now, SCOTUS would overturn Heller is laughable because something similar to that has never happened. Especially after nearly a decade of legal carrying of handguns being a reality in places like Chicago, NY, LA, DC....

It would trigger a Con-Con call. They won't do it.

sholling
12-12-2012, 3:52 PM
The supreme court is never legally bound to respect past rulings (like Heller) but they don't go back and reopen cases. Instead a future court would just wait for a new 2nd Amendment case to rule that there is no individual right what so ever to keep and bear arms - only a right of states to arm national guard units. The new ruling then effectively overturns the old ruling with or without stating the the previous ruling was in error.

The idea that the supreme court wouldn't be willing to overturn Heller once there is a Progressive majority is wishful thinking. The dissent in the McDonald case shows that the Progressives on the court are chomping at the bit for a chance to overturn Heller the first chance they get.

speedrrracer
12-12-2012, 5:01 PM
The rest of America has allowed politics to become almost as bad as religion -- you can't even talk politics anymore, because it's so divisive. We retreat into forums composed largely of like-minded people, because civil discussion is impossible with the intolerance in America today.

Since SCOTUS judges come from that same pool of Americans, it makes sense that eventually, if this divisiveness is indeed the new norm, all SCOTUS justices will tend to be more and more politically agitated.

Certainly the Senators who confirm them have long been looking for ways to place judges who promote "their" way of thinking, and that trend certainly seems likely to continue. Why wouldn't more extreme elected officials, e.g. Tea Party types, try to place a justice who is similarly extreme?

That's partly why there's an odd number of justices...to avoid deadlock on divisive political issues.

Not saying it's even remotely likely, but it's certainly possible that someday we'll have a SCOTUS that is just as extreme as any other branch of the govt, and "sets a precedent" of just trashing previous decisions left and right. From that point on, all future courts will probably do the same...

curtisfong
12-12-2012, 5:10 PM
Slaughterhouse, anyone?

RMP91
12-12-2012, 5:41 PM
Technically, they CAN be overturned, but I would not bet money on it.

It takes years, if not decades to establish and overturn precedent.

Hell, Supreme Court rulings have been overturned only a few times in our nation's history.

It's possible, yes, but extraordinarily unlikely.

press1280
12-12-2012, 6:11 PM
I don't think they'd directly overturn Heller unless they want to risk the wrath of the country and get their decision ov erturned by amendment. Instead they'd cap Heller and allow any regulations as long as it isn't a total ban. They may allow a locality to do may-issue for possession or some other BS.

RandyD
12-12-2012, 6:43 PM
I do not share the optimism of those above who believe a liberal court would allow Heller to stand for the following reasons. Liberals are not guided by the rule of law. They have no regard for the truth, history or legal precedence unless it comports with their ideology. They are best characterized as following the rule that the end justifies the means. Heller is not a legal precedence that comports with their ideology and they will use whatever means they can to overturn it.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 7:25 PM
I'm no lawyer, I didn't even go to college but I do remember a good bit of the old history & social studies classes.

We, as a free, voting people, could make it a lot more difficult for any laws or constitutional rights that only rely on precedence to be overturned. All we have to do is get those laws & rights through clearly written legislation versus litigation. Granted, the litigation does lay the groundwork for getting amendments or laws passed a little easier but ultimately, if we rely only on precedence, we are always going to be subject to having rights easily taken away by a judge, a group of judges or a jury when those small groups of people interpret the laws differently than the majority does. i.e. - This is the sole reason that the NRA refused to get involved with the Washington DC handgun case a few years ago.

I'm sure a lot of you reading this are saying "Easier said than done, JD!" and that's true, but no one ever said true freedom was an easy thing to achieve.

Legislation regarding the 2nd Amendment is not only a possibility, it's a reality. It is the only thing that truly will affect the situation.

Anti-gun groups use legislation all the time in their favor... and the anti-gun lobbyists get laws passed with inaccurate facts, pseudo-science & mostly, scare tactics.

Just think how far we, as a people, can get if we use accurate facts, REAL science & basically, THE TRUTH.

The first step is educating ourselves with all of those facts & science. (Myself included)

The second step is educating every single person you can to those facts once you learn them because most people that are against the right to keep & bear arms are simply ignorant to the facts.

Just my thoughts, JDMcGee

sholling
12-12-2012, 7:39 PM
We, as a free, voting people, could make it a lot more difficult for any laws or constitutional rights that only rely on precedence to be overturned. All we have to do is get those laws & rights through clearly written legislation versus litigation. Granted, the litigation does lay the groundwork for getting amendments or laws passed a little easier but ultimately, if we rely only on precedence we are always going to be subject to having rights taken away by a judge, a group of judges or a jury when those small groups of people interpret the laws differently than the majority does.

I'm sure a lot of you reading this are saying "Easier said than done!" and that's true, but no one ever said true freedom was an easy thing to achieve.

Legislation regarding the 2nd Amendment is not only a possibility, it's the only thing that truly will affect the situation.

Anti-gun groups use legislation all the time in their favor... and the anti-gun groups get laws passed with inaccurate facts, pseudo-science & mostly, scare tactics.

Just think how far we, as a people, can get if we use accurate facts, REAL science & THE TRUTH.

Just my thoughts, JDMcGee
Unfortunately, and no disrespect intended, but your suggestion is little more than fantasy in this state and at the federal level. There is barely enough support in the state legislature to block additional gun control laws and no way will we get much in the way of roll backs. Soccer moms and liberals have been conditioned to believe that the mere possession of a firearm will cause the gun owner to slaughter children and ex wives and there is no way they will support us.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 7:44 PM
Unfortunately, and no disrespect intended, but your suggestion is little more than fantasy in this state and at the federal level. There is barely enough support in the state legislature to block additional gun control laws and no way will we get much in the way of roll backs. Soccer moms and liberals have been conditioned to believe that the mere possession of a firearm will cause the gun owner to slaughter children and ex wives and there is no way they will support us.

As I stated, it won't be easy but all of us would still have English accents & serve a King or Queen if our forefathers gave up before fighting.

JD

monk
12-12-2012, 7:47 PM
I'm no lawyer, I didn't even go to college but I do remember a good bit of the old history & social studies classes.

We, as a free, voting people, could make it a lot more difficult for any laws or constitutional rights that only rely on precedence to be overturned. All we have to do is get those laws & rights through clearly written legislation versus litigation. Granted, the litigation does lay the groundwork for getting amendments or laws passed a little easier but ultimately, if we rely only on precedence, we are always going to be subject to having rights easily taken away by a judge, a group of judges or a jury when those small groups of people interpret the laws differently than the majority does. i.e. - This is the sole reason that the NRA refused to get involved with the Washington DC handgun case a few years ago.

I'm sure a lot of you reading this are saying "Easier said than done, JD!" and that's true, but no one ever said true freedom was an easy thing to achieve.

Legislation regarding the 2nd Amendment is not only a possibility, it's a reality. It is the only thing that truly will affect the situation.

Anti-gun groups use legislation all the time in their favor... and the anti-gun lobbyists get laws passed with inaccurate facts, pseudo-science & mostly, scare tactics.

Just think how far we, as a people, can get if we use accurate facts, REAL science & basically, THE TRUTH.

The first step is educating ourselves with all of those facts & science. (Myself included)

The second step is educating every single person you can to those facts once you learn them because most people that are against the right to keep & bear arms are simply ignorant to the facts.

Just my thoughts, JDMcGee

Good luck trying to get pro-gun laws passed in this state. The country as a whole seems to be moving toward a more understanding road. I cite a Lifetime channel show about women and guns; in particular they showed how people should be safe with, but not afraid of, guns. This state, however, will probably be one of the last, if at all, that actually decent pro-gun laws on the books. We're not the worst, but we're not exactly middle of the road here.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 7:55 PM
Good luck trying to get pro-gun laws passed in this state. The country as a whole seems to be moving toward a more understanding road. I cite a Lifetime channel show about women and guns; in particular they showed how people should be safe with, but not afraid of, guns. This state, however, will probably be one of the last, if at all, that actually decent pro-gun laws on the books. We're not the worst, but we're not exactly middle of the road here.

Yeah, I understand that but if you convince yourself that you've already lost the war you will never win a battle.

JD

blakdawg
12-12-2012, 7:57 PM
This article in the Economist - http://www.economist.com/node/20024988 - does a reasonable job of providing background.

Chances are that an anti-gun Supreme Court won't explicitly overrule Heller and McDonald, they'll just "clarify" the 2nd Amendment to death or irrelevance.

If you want to think about how gun rights can be narrowed/restricted away, look at what's happened with abortions and smoking. Both of those things are perfectly legal, but there are some states in the US where - just like with guns - it's effectively impossible to get an abortion, because the providers have been legislated and terrorized into closing. It's still possible to buy cigarettes everywhere, I think, but it can be awfully tough to find a place to legally enjoy a cigarette/pipe/cigar - in some places, not even in your own home.

I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing here about whether or not those restrictions on abortion and smoking are reasonable or appropriate - but what can be helpful is to (without getting distracted by how you feel about those regulations) look at how opponents of those things have managed, despite those practices being facially legal (and in the case of abortions, constitutionally protected), to make engaging in them very uncomfortable/difficult, reaching a point of being effectively impossible.

Skidmark
12-12-2012, 8:03 PM
I do not share the optimism of those above who believe a liberal court would allow Heller to stand for the following reasons. Liberals are not guided by the rule of law. They have no regard for the truth, history or legal precedence unless it comports with their ideology. They are best characterized as following the rule that the end justifies the means. Heller is not a legal precedence that comports with their ideology and they will use whatever means they can to overturn it.

:rolleyes:

Your over-broad generalizations swing wide of the target.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 8:03 PM
Also, the biggest gun-related frustrations I have had since moving to California a few years ago isn't related to the gun laws themselves (although the laws do drive me crazy), it's the general "There's nothing we can do about the gun laws" attitude that the large majority of California gun enthusiasts have.

JD

hornswaggled
12-12-2012, 8:11 PM
Good luck trying to get pro-gun laws passed in this state. The country as a whole seems to be moving toward a more understanding road. I cite a Lifetime channel show about women and guns; in particular they showed how people should be safe with, but not afraid of, guns. This state, however, will probably be one of the last, if at all, that actually decent pro-gun laws on the books. We're not the worst, but we're not exactly middle of the road here.

Uphill struggle here, which is why these US court wins are so damn nice. Sooo Mr. Rogue state, the Federal Govt has said X, how about you??

Dantedamean
12-12-2012, 8:19 PM
as many have stated I doubt they would outright over turn it. I can see a new assault weapon ban and a new act similar to the NFA only to cover all weapons. They can make it so that only bolt action rifles and single action pistols are easy to get, anything more and you need to pay an outrageous tax stamp and a long wait for a background check. Federal gun registries, law enforcement exceptions, and many new out right bans on guns.

Obviously republicans control the house so there wont be anything passed just yet, however I fear we may loose that control if these morons cant come to a budget deal.

RMP91
12-12-2012, 8:20 PM
Such a defeatist attitude coming from certain members here...

We just won a HUGE victory yesterday, it's not going to just get erased overnight!

hornswaggled
12-12-2012, 8:29 PM
Such a defeatist attitude coming from certain members here...

We just won a HUGE victory yesterday, it's not going to just get erased overnight!

Same people who whined during SB249, "We're gonna lose!!!" Some people just want to lay down and die before even getting up to the plate.

RMP91
12-12-2012, 8:31 PM
Same people who whined during SB249, "We're gonna lose!!!" Some people just want to lay down and die before even getting up to the plate.

Exactly. At least TRY before you go out and turn into one of those crazy doomsayers that walk the streets of big cities that wear signs claiming that aliens are gonna take over the world or some crazy **** like that.

monk
12-12-2012, 8:42 PM
Such a defeatist attitude coming from certain members here...

We just won a HUGE victory yesterday, it's not going to just get erased overnight!

When the "wins" are few and far between, and sometimes even seem like they're being stretched, I hope you can understand why many have that attitude.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 8:54 PM
When the "wins" are few and far between, and sometimes even seem like they're being stretched, I hope you can understand why many have that attitude.

It's up to us by using our voices to make those "wins" a little more frequent.

If we all had the attitude that we had to fight for our Constitutional rights because our lives depend on it then we won't have to worry about losing our lives due to losing our rights.

sholling
12-12-2012, 9:17 PM
Exactly. At least TRY before you go out and turn into one of those crazy doomsayers that walk the streets of big cities that wear signs claiming that aliens are gonna take over the world or some crazy **** like that.

Have you taken the time to read the dissenting opinions from McDonald? The Progressives make it quite clear exactly how they will rule once they have a majority. You can deny it or call it doomsaying but it's right there for you to read. Breyer was all over talk shows talking about how the Heller ruling was a mistake and not based in the constitution and that there was no generally accepted right to bear arms at the time of ratification. All it will take is one more Progressive on the court and any individual right to keep and bear arms is toast.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm
Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. Stevens asserted that the 2nd Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He described the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive;” its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.

In his dissent, Breyer argued that even if the 2nd Amendment, in addition to militia-related purposes, protects an individual's right of self-defense, that assumption should be the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer contended that there are no purely logical or conceptual ways to determine the constitutionality of gun control laws, such as the District's law. Thus, a sounder approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.” Breyer concluded that under a balancing test that takes into account the extensive evidence of gun crime and gun violence in urban areas, the District's gun law would be constitutionally permissible. Breyer was joined in his dissent by Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens.

Calplinker
12-12-2012, 9:28 PM
Chances are that an anti-gun Supreme Court won't explicitly overrule Heller and McDonald, they'll just "clarify" the 2nd Amendment to death or irrelevance.

If you want to think about how gun rights can be narrowed/restricted away, look at what's happened with abortions and smoking. Both of those things are perfectly legal, but there are some states in the US where - just like with guns - it's effectively impossible to get an abortion, because the providers have been legislated and terrorized into closing. It's still possible to buy cigarettes everywhere, I think, but it can be awfully tough to find a place to legally enjoy a cigarette/pipe/cigar - in some places, not even in your own home.


Good argument, but you missed one very fundamental distinction.

Abortions and Smoking are not codified as a civil right.

The right to keep and bear arms is a "fundamental human right that predates the constitution"., and of course a civil right explicitly spelled out in that grand document; at least according to SCOTUS. ;)

sholling
12-12-2012, 9:41 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is a "fundamental human right that predates the constitution"., and of course a civil right explicitly spelled out in that grand document; at least according to SCOTUS. ;)
No it is not according to 4 of the justices and they will never accept the RKBA as a right spelled out in the constitution and the next Obama appointment(s) will be just as anti RKBA as they are.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 9:46 PM
Have you taken the time to read the dissenting opinions from McDonald? The Progressives make it quite clear exactly how they will rule once they have a majority. You can deny it or call it doomsaying but it's right there for you to read. Breyer was all over talk shows talking about how the Heller ruling was a mistake and not based in the constitution and that there was no generally accepted right to bear arms at the time of ratification. All it will take is one more Progressive on the court and any individual right to keep and bear arms is toast.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm

Oh, I guess you're right. It's a lot easier to roll over & accept (or at least add negative fuel to) the remote possibility of a loss of our rights instead of actually trying to change people's minds.

I stated earlier in this thread that we all need to learn the facts pertaining to gun rights so we can educate other people to change their anti-gun views but I think I'm wrong... The first thing a bunch of us need to do is change our own minds that this is a battle worth fighting because it is the right thing & believe in our own minds that we CAN WIN every battle that is a blatant reduction of our freedom. If you don't believe this than we should just go ahead & give up our arms... Shortly followed by all of our freedom.

kf6tac
12-12-2012, 11:16 PM
The Supreme Court has said in past opinions that stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases:

"In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the desirability of continuity of decision in constitutional questions. However, when convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. This has long been accepted practice, and this practice has continued to this day.

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944) (emphasis added).

You can bet that if the liberals on the court get a majority in favor of overturning Heller and McDonald, they'll do it.

safewaysecurity
12-12-2012, 11:31 PM
Brown V Board of Education overturned Plessy v Feruson. Heck even after Heller was ruled on if there was just 1 more vote the other way in McDonald they would have effectively overturned Heller. I predict in the carry case that goes up we will have 4 solid no votes.

sholling
12-12-2012, 11:36 PM
Oh, I guess you're right. It's a lot easier to roll over & accept (or at least add negative fuel to) the remote possibility of a loss of our rights instead of actually trying to change people's minds.

I stated earlier in this thread that we all need to learn the facts pertaining to gun rights so we can educate other people to change their anti-gun views but I think I'm wrong... The first thing a bunch of us need to do is change our own minds that this is a battle worth fighting because it is the right thing & believe in our own minds that we CAN WIN every battle that is a blatant reduction of our freedom. If you don't believe this than we should just go ahead & give up our arms... Shortly followed by all of our freedom.
Nobody said "roll over & accept" all I did is point out that elections have consequences and we may wind up feeling the consequences of the November election though the loss of our rights - that's just reality and we have to take reality into account. The election means that we have to wrap Heller in as many freedom expanding victories as we can before one of the Heller 5 retires, dies, or becomes too sick to continue and then stop once a 5th Progressive is appointed and confirmed because a Progressive majority will use any excuse to roll back our freedoms. Of course a Hilary win in 2016 assures that a hard core anti will replace 1-3 of the Heller 5 that make it to 2016. When that happens be sure to thank those that voted for hardcore antis in 2008, 2012, and/or 2016. We and they cannot be allowed to forget that elections have consequences for our rights.

wash
12-12-2012, 11:45 PM
The trouble with overturning Heller and McDonald is that there are a lot of gun owners in the country and we can read.

Heller and McDonald were wins for us because the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and if anyone tries to stack the court and attack our rights, the American public will not stand for it.

sholling
12-13-2012, 12:22 AM
The trouble with overturning Heller and McDonald is that there are a lot of gun owners in the country and we can read.
The reading part is a notion that would shock the heck out a majority of the Progressive media.

Heller and McDonald were wins for us because the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and if anyone tries to stack the court and attack our rights, the American public will not stand for it.
The public opposed Obamacare, how did that vote turn out? Obama has a monopoly on nominations and the Democrat controlled senate will rubber stamp any hardcore antigun Progressive he nominates and the media will scream racism/sexism at all who oppose the nominee. The next nominees will handle it the same way the wise latina handled it - lie. The nominee will swear to respect the Heller precedent and then vote just the opposite with the 1st case that comes up just like she did.

safewaysecurity
12-13-2012, 12:47 AM
The trouble with overturning Heller and McDonald is that there are a lot of gun owners in the country and we can read.

Heller and McDonald were wins for us because the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and if anyone tries to stack the court and attack our rights, the American public will not stand for it.

You wanna bet? I'm willing to bet that if the carry cases go to SCOTUS and they don't rule in our favor that there will not be any sort of armed insurrection or any sort of new tea party movement.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 1:21 AM
Nobody said "roll over & accept" all I did is point out that elections have consequences and we may wind up feeling the consequences of the November election though the loss of our rights - that's just reality and we have to take reality into account. The election means that we have to wrap Heller in as many freedom expanding victories as we can before one of the Heller 5 retires, dies, or becomes too sick to continue and then stop once a 5th Progressive is appointed and confirmed because a Progressive majority will use any excuse to roll back our freedoms. Of course a Hilary win in 2016 assures that a hard core anti will replace 1-3 of the Heller 5 that make it to 2016. When that happens be sure to thank those that voted for hardcore antis in 2008, 2012, and/or 2016. We and they cannot be allowed to forget that elections have consequences for our rights.

I want to let everyone know that I'm not trying to be jerk with any of my posts, I promise. Sholling, please know I'm not picking on you, only trying to get some points across.

In the above quoted post you make statements about the election & how we're going to feel the consequences. Yes, without a doubt, good or bad, we are. My issue with your statement is that you are basically stating that due to the current administration we're all just screwed. The USA doesn't have to work that way.

Let me explain, My Mom was a bit of an activist in 60's. One thing she always taught me growing up is that the great thing about the USA is that, thanks to our rights guaranteed by the Constitution, if we don't like what is happening in our country, we can, as a people, change it. Am I talking violent revolution? Definitely not, a violent revolution is only acceptable as a last straw against tyranny. The weapons we can & must use are our voices! The problem is that one voice is rarely heard in a crowd.

If every person (including myself) in this country that was tired of our freedoms being stolen away (not just the 2A) actually spoke up to the powers that be (local, state or federal) & demanded change, the powers that be would have two choices:

1: simply CHANGE to represent what the people demand

OR

2: revert to a totalitarian, tyrannical police state

No one, I mean NO ONE, wants option 2.

So, it looks like it's all of our responsibility to demand change. The more people the better. If you're thinking this could never work, look around you... The next time you see a woman or a person of color, they are equals & can even vote because of the above tactics.

Like I stated in a previous post in this thread, learn your firearm facts & educate everyone you meet on those facts. Most anti-gun folks are literally ignorant about the facts.

There are millions upon millions of people that are quick to say "From my cold, dead hands" or "Molon Labe" but it seems there are very, very few of us that are willing to take PERSONAL ACTION with the proper steps to actually change the environment that we disagree with.

Donating to CalGuns, the NRA & the like is a great start but we can all do so much more.

If we do it right, none of us will have to worry about anyone coming to get them from our cold, dead hands.

JDMcGee

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 1:42 AM
You wanna bet? I'm willing to bet that if the carry cases go to SCOTUS and they don't rule in our favor that there will not be any sort of armed insurrection or any sort of new tea party movement.

You are exactly correct, nothing would happen. It goes without dispute that 99% of gun owners have done nothing about the 2A rights & freedoms that we have already lost, especially in California.

Most of us are too quick to accept it & do nothing but complain... Quickly followed with "If the government tries to infringe on our gun rights one more time, we won't stand for it!"...

People need to remember that ANY law on the books that we don't agree with is only there or still there because we didn't make our voices heard...

If we're only showing our disgust to like-minded people, nothing will ever get solved. The anti-gun folks know this, that's why they are always in the spotlight, on the offense, spreading their gospel to the masses. This is why the ball is almost always on their side of the court unless there's a mass shooting... Then the pro 2A folks get to defend their Constitutional rights.

Everyone knows that you never get to score if all you play is defense.

JD

Gray Peterson
12-13-2012, 2:18 AM
You are exactly correct, nothing would happen. It goes without dispute that 99% of gun owners have done nothing about the 2A rights & freedoms that we have already lost, especially in California.

Most of us are too quick to accept it & do nothing but complain... Quickly followed with "If the government tries to infringe on our gun rights one more time, we won't stand for it!"...

People need to remember that ANY law on the books that we don't agree with is only there or still there because we didn't make our voices heard...

If we're only showing our disgust to like-minded people, nothing will ever get solved. The anti-gun folks know this, that's why they are always in the spotlight, on the offense, spreading their gospel to the masses. This is why the ball is almost always on their side of the court unless there's a mass shooting... Then the pro 2A folks get to defend their Constitutional rights.

Everyone knows that you never get to score if all you play is defense.

JD

Yeah, and suing Illinois is "playing defense", right?

451040
12-13-2012, 5:11 AM
The leftists/statists will lie, cheat and steal to overturn the individual's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That much is a given. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."






The public opposed Obamacare, how did that vote turn out?


How did the 2010 midterm elections turn out?

zfields
12-13-2012, 5:15 AM
Tagged. Interesting.thread.

Sent from my Incredible 2

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 6:12 AM
Yeah, and suing Illinois is "playing defense", right?

No, something like that is a huge score for us on offense but my point is, how were you, personally, involved with that specific cause?

Were you 1 of the millions that were physically at the courts to show that you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to call the newspapers & news outlets to show that you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to start a grass roots movement that couldn't be ignored to show you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to make sure that it was easy for any courts to decide in favor of pro 2A laws because the vast majority of Americans showed their support by the millions, 1 at a time, every day until we won the war?

If any of the above is true for you, that is amazing because I haven't seen millions of people speak up for their 2A rights. If you're one of the tens or hundreds or maybe, thousands to do the above actions, THANK YOU! I wish I was more like one of you. You are part of a very, very small minority & you deserve praise for your daily work for our freedoms. If more of us were like you, there would be no reason for any of us to be like you.

What can you, personally, do to ensure our freedoms today...

if you're only donating to CalGuns & the NRA, subscribing to threads on gun forums, giving a "thumbs up" on Facebook posts by Ted Nugent or talking to your shooting buddies about the 2nd Amendment, I'm sorry but that's not enough.

If we're all not willing to do a lot more, we should all find a new passion because we won't have our 2nd Amendment much longer to be passionate about.

JDMcGee

Mulay El Raisuli
12-13-2012, 9:00 AM
This article in the Economist - http://www.economist.com/node/20024988 - does a reasonable job of providing background.

Chances are that an anti-gun Supreme Court won't explicitly overrule Heller and McDonald, they'll just "clarify" the 2nd Amendment to death or irrelevance.

If you want to think about how gun rights can be narrowed/restricted away, look at what's happened with abortions and smoking. Both of those things are perfectly legal, but there are some states in the US where - just like with guns - it's effectively impossible to get an abortion, because the providers have been legislated and terrorized into closing. It's still possible to buy cigarettes everywhere, I think, but it can be awfully tough to find a place to legally enjoy a cigarette/pipe/cigar - in some places, not even in your own home.

I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing here about whether or not those restrictions on abortion and smoking are reasonable or appropriate - but what can be helpful is to (without getting distracted by how you feel about those regulations) look at how opponents of those things have managed, despite those practices being facially legal (and in the case of abortions, constitutionally protected), to make engaging in them very uncomfortable/difficult, reaching a point of being effectively impossible.


I wouldn't label the author of the article as being "reasonable." But he does make a good point. Concrete social shifts can lay the groundwork for overturning precedent. The bleatings of the antis don't raise to that level. WE are winning the war for the hearts & minds of America when it comes to the 2A. The pendulum must be kept swinging, but we can do that.


The supreme court is never legally bound to respect past rulings (like Heller) but they don't go back and reopen cases. Instead a future court would just wait for a new 2nd Amendment case to rule that there is no individual right what so ever to keep and bear arms - only a right of states to arm national guard units. The new ruling then effectively overturns the old ruling with or without stating the the previous ruling was in error.


No, they couldn't. The whole basis for Heller was that it was NOT limited to the National Guard & therefore WAS an individual right. McDonald affirmed this.


The idea that the supreme court wouldn't be willing to overturn Heller once there is a Progressive majority is wishful thinking. The dissent in the McDonald case shows that the Progressives on the court are chomping at the bit for a chance to overturn Heller the first chance they get.


That the antis desire this is not doubted by me. But given that they would have to DIRECTLY overturn the above precedents, and whatever new ones come their way in the next few years (Moore, anyone?), their task is a little harder than you describe.


No, something like that is a huge score for us on offense but my point is, how were you, personally, involved with that specific cause?

Were you 1 of the millions that were physically at the courts to show that you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to call the newspapers & news outlets to show that you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to start a grass roots movement that couldn't be ignored to show you agreed with pro 2A laws?

Were you 1 of the millions to make sure that it was easy for any courts to decide in favor of pro 2A laws because the vast majority of Americans showed their support by the millions, 1 at a time, every day until we won the war?

If any of the above is true for you, that is amazing because I haven't seen millions of people speak up for their 2A rights. If you're one of the tens or hundreds or maybe, thousands to do the above actions, THANK YOU! I wish I was more like one of you. You are part of a very, very small minority & you deserve praise for your daily work for our freedoms. If more of us were like you, there would be no reason for any of us to be like you.

What can you, personally, do to ensure our freedoms today...

if you're only donating to CalGuns & the NRA, subscribing to threads on gun forums, giving a "thumbs up" on Facebook posts by Ted Nugent or talking to your shooting buddies about the 2nd Amendment, I'm sorry but that's not enough.

If we're all not willing to do a lot more, we should all find a new passion because we won't have our 2nd Amendment much longer to be passionate about.

JDMcGee


When you've been a while, you'll learn not to question Grays' PERSONAL effort, treasure & dedication to the cause. Your debt to him is already HUGE & will only get bigger.

Please do not insult him with such foolishness.


The Raisuli

Uxi
12-13-2012, 9:14 AM
It was a first down in the red zone, that's for sure but not a touchdown yet. We're not sure if they're going to play prevent defense or leave it alone, though. They definitely haven't surrendered yet, either, though.

sholling
12-13-2012, 9:32 AM
I want to let everyone know that I'm not trying to be jerk with any of my posts, I promise. Sholling, please know I'm not picking on you, only trying to get some points across.
I admire your spirit but speaking as someone that I suspect has been around a bit longer I know from experience that the political process doesn't always work the way we'd like. The biggest advantage that the antis have is that they and their fellow Progressives dominate the establishment media and for 50 years have successfully painted gun owners as ignorant barely literate racist rednecks not to be listened to, and driven home the idea that mere possession of a firearm in the home will drive men to shoot their wives and children. This bit of satire perfectly describes the methods that the media have used successfully to demonize and disarm us. (http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm) As we've seen with the coverage of the TEA Party the establishment media will tell any lie necessary to demonize anyone that they see as a roadblock to their goals. With the TEA Party they simply repeatedly described peaceful libertarian leaning grandparents as violent foaming at the mouth racists over and over and over until the public bought into their Big Lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+lie) and started believing it must be true - after all the media wouldn't say it if it wasn't true :rolleyes:. The media do the same with gun owners and by hyping the crap out of every crime involving a gun while refusing to cover self defense. In other words the antis control the message.

As for the civil rights movement (I remember it well) your heart is in the right place but your history is a bit off. From the 1860s through the 1960s the Democratic Party and their militant action arm the KKK fought civil rights tooth and nail. It was only the action of a Republican appointed Supreme Court majority in Brown v Board Of Education and a Republican President that sent in troops to enforce that ruling followed by a Republican Voting Rights Act that civil rights happened at all. It took court action to solve the problem. Naturally the media then proclaimed the foes of civil rights (the media's party) including "former" KKK activists to be the real champions of civil rights :rolleyes:. I bring this up as a case in point of the power of the establishment media to distort history and shape the public's perceptions in any direction they choose though the use of the Big Lie technique - tell a lie so outrageous that no one will believe that you'd just make up something that incredible and then repeat it over and over until it becomes ingrained in the public consciousnesses as fact. That's what we face as gun owners here in California and why we cannot win the political argument in this state until after we win in the courts and prove that shall-issue LTC hasn't turned the streets into flowing rivers of the blood of children. In the meantime the media will continue to paint us as ignorant barely literate homophobic racists incapable of putting two sentences together without sounding like a low grade moron and will only interview those that fit the stereotype that they want the public to believe. New media (The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/), PJ Media, and Breibart) are doing what they can but they don't have the reach of our foes at ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and MSNBC, the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Associated Press.

As for my feelings about activism see my signature line below. Yes get involved in groups, contribute what you can afford and a bit more, and introduce as many people as you can to shooting sports and get female friends involved in shooting and self defense classes. Long term that stuff is absolutely critical to continuing what legal action is starting! But for now the only hope for 2nd Amendment civil rights in California is the courts. We're just too many million voters short of a majority and too many of our own will happily trade away the entire 2nd Amendment for a larger nanny state.

sholling
12-13-2012, 9:49 AM
No, they couldn't. The whole basis for Heller was that it was NOT limited to the National Guard & therefore WAS an individual right. McDonald affirmed this.

That the antis desire this is not doubted by me. But given that they would have to DIRECTLY overturn the above precedents, and whatever new ones come their way in the next few years (Moore, anyone?), their task is a little harder than you describe.
Wishful thinking my friend just like it was wishful thinking that the unloaded open carry movement would win us friends and bring about constitutional carry in California though public acclaim. Progressive justices have no compunction against ignoring past precedents and the written word of the constitution to impose their politics on the people. As I've pointed out repeatedly the descending opinions in the McDonald case were used to lay the groundwork to completely reverse the results of Heller and strike RKBA from the constitution and all of the wishing and hoping in the world won't change their intentions. The only question is how fast they will move. Will they roll back rights one at a time buying us some time or will they simply use a future case to rule that Heller was ruled incorrectly and limit the 2nd to the nation guard. Our only hope is to wrap Heller in as many solid follow up precedents as possible before they gain the majority and then hold onto what we can until we have a majority on the court again - possibly sometime between 2024 and never. In the mean time all we can do is contribute to the cause and pro-gun rights candidates.

Gray Peterson
12-13-2012, 10:04 AM
sholling,

With the exception of Earl Warren, every other Justice of the Brown decision was appointed by FDR or Truman.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 10:23 AM
I When you've been a while, you'll learn not to question Grays' PERSONAL effort, treasure & dedication to the cause. Your debt to him is already HUGE & will only get bigger.

Please do not insult him with such foolishness.


The Raisuli

You are correct. I know nothing of most people's personal efforts. This is the major problem when so few people's voices are heard in general media out of the millions of people who personally support 2A rights.

Gray's efforts or actions could be astounding & if they are, Gray, I sincerely thank you for that & if you or anyone interpreted anything I've stated as an insult, I apologize. That is NOT my intention.

I'm only stating to everyone who reads this that we can all do more. Basically, if everyone who felt strongly about the issue of a right to keep & bear arms made their collective voices heard, we wouldn't be having this dialog in the first place.

I have read thousands of posts from people on countless firearm-related forums proclaiming that "They (meaning NRA, CGF, etc.) are working on this legislation or that litigation for our 2A rights." which is wonderful & needed. But, what we all need to be asking ourselves is "What can I do every single day to ensure my 2A rights are not infringed upon." You can never depend on only someone else's actions to guarantee your personal freedoms. You will always rely on only your own words & actions. True change starts within yourself.

Said change always begins with an angry or awkward conversation but the only way that change will ever become a reality is by having those same angry or awkward conversations with everyone you physically can. You will find that in many cases there are many of us that once disagreed with your views actually want the same goal achieved once we know the facts.

This is the inherent problem though, the large majority of people that want change never get past the "mumbling & grumbling to like-minded people" phase.

So, everyone, learn your 2A related facts & then share them with everyone, not just fellow gun enthusiasts.

JD

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 11:09 AM
I admire your spirit but speaking as someone that I suspect has been around a bit longer I know from experience that the political process doesn't always work the way we'd like. The biggest advantage that the antis have is that they and their fellow Progressives dominate the establishment media and for 50 years have successfully painted gun owners as ignorant barely literate racist rednecks not to be listened to, and driven home the idea that mere possession of a firearm in the home will drive men to shoot their wives and children. This bit of satire perfectly describes the methods that the media have used successfully to demonize and disarm us. (http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm) As we've seen with the coverage of the TEA Party the establishment media will tell any lie necessary to demonize anyone that they see as a roadblock to their goals. With the TEA Party they simply repeatedly described peaceful libertarian leaning grandparents as violent foaming at the mouth racists over and over and over until the public bought into their Big Lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+lie) and started believing it must be true - after all the media wouldn't say it if it wasn't true :rolleyes:. The media do the same with gun owners and by hyping the crap out of every crime involving a gun while refusing to cover self defense. In other words the antis control the message.

As for the civil rights movement (I remember it well) your heart is in the right place but your history is a bit off. From the 1860s through the 1960s the Democratic Party and their militant action arm the KKK fought civil rights tooth and nail. It was only the action of a Republican appointed Supreme Court majority in Brown v Board Of Education and a Republican President that sent in troops to enforce that ruling followed by a Republican Voting Rights Act that civil rights happened at all. It took court action to solve the problem. Naturally the media then proclaimed the foes of civil rights (the media's party) including "former" KKK activists to be the real champions of civil rights :rolleyes:. I bring this up as a case in point of the power of the establishment media to distort history and shape the public's perceptions in any direction they choose though the use of the Big Lie technique - tell a lie so outrageous that no one will believe that you'd just make up something that incredible and then repeat it over and over until it becomes ingrained in the public consciousnesses as fact. That's what we face as gun owners here in California and why we cannot win the political argument in this state until after we win in the courts and prove that shall-issue LTC hasn't turned the streets into flowing rivers of the blood of children. In the meantime the media will continue to paint us as ignorant barely literate homophobic racists incapable of putting two sentences together without sounding like a low grade moron and will only interview those that fit the stereotype that they want the public to believe. New media (The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/), PJ Media, and Breibart) are doing what they can but they don't have the reach of our foes at ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and MSNBC, the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Associated Press.

As for my feelings about activism see my signature line below. Yes get involved in groups, contribute what you can afford and a bit more, and introduce as many people as you can to shooting sports and get female friends involved in shooting and self defense classes. Long term that stuff is absolutely critical to continuing what legal action is starting! But for now the only hope for 2nd Amendment civil rights in California is the courts. We're just too many million voters short of a majority and too many of our own will happily trade away the entire 2nd Amendment for a larger nanny state.

I'm probably not as young as you might think I am... I'm a lot closer to my retirement years than my high school years.

A couple fundamental flaws in the logic put forward in your post:

True, in this state we as 2A proponents might be outnumbered but what is stopping us from literally converting people to a pro 2A attitude... the answer, nothing. The only thing stopping us from changing people's minds is that we have to believe that we can. As I stated before, most, if not all, anti-gun rhetoric is based on scare tactics and/or inaccurate "facts". People have to be made aware that their beliefs are wrong before you can ever change their minds.

Which brings me to my second point, regarding the media. It's no secret that the only time we hear about guns in the media is when they are painted in a horrific light. Any idea what can stop this travesty? You, me & anyone else reading this can stop it... With our wallets. The reason the media is anti-gun is because the anti-gun groups have made that very popular through lies or shock & awe whenever there is a gun related tragedy. Popular=$$$$, plain & simple. Hypothetically, let's say 20,000,000 pro 2A americans called or wrote NBC SPORTS & their advertisers demanding that Bob Costas be reprimanded (or at least give us fair & balanced reporting instead of an editorial opinion) for his recent anti-gun statements or they will no longer watch NBC or purchase products from their advertisers. It could change a lot of minds in a For-Profit corporation if this was to happen & actually be followed through with. The only reason the media portrays any topic slanted one way or another is due to fact that they are getting our dollars while they do it. Just hypothetical but food for thought.

Thirdly, in regards to civil rights, are you telling me that the protests & sit-ins did nothing for their cause? I can personally introduce you to 50 or so people in Georgia & Mississippi that were directly involved with those protests & sit-ins that would beg to differ.

Also, with all due respect Sholling, the attitude of "there's nothing we can do except try to get a couple minor wins under our belt & wait it out" is poison for the cause. You might not believe it but change can & will happen, but not unless we band together for a common goal, no matter how impossible that goal might seem to attain. Don't forget that we as a group ARE the ones who ultimately decide our fate in the 2A battle by who we elect, permit to be elected without a fight or even by which companies or politicians we give our money to privately.

JD

OleCuss
12-13-2012, 11:56 AM
.
.
.
Gray's efforts or actions could be astounding & if they are, Gray, I sincerely thank you for that & if you or anyone interpreted anything I've stated as an insult, I apologize. That is NOT my intention.
.
.
.

Everyone's definition of "astounding" varies a little, but at a minimum Gray's effort's approach - and may exceed what is implied by "astounding".

He truly is an exceptional defender of our rights.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 12:07 PM
Everyone's definition of "astounding" varies a little, but at a minimum Gray's effort's approach - and may exceed what is implied by "astounding".

He truly is an exceptional defender of our rights.

Just to clarify again, I never intended to insult or offend anyone. Never even close to my intention... I don't want to alienate myself from anyone that might have a like-minded goal.

Also, the more I've read from Gray on his blog or this forum, the more I think astounding is the right word.

JD

JPShinn
12-13-2012, 12:21 PM
All I have to say is that we should pray very long and hard for the continued health of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. If Mr. Obama has an opportunity to appoint a justice to replace one of the above (he'll already most likely get to nominate Justice Ginsburg's replacement), we are well and truly screwed, whether it be with respect to 2A rights or any other matter of freedom and governmental overreach.

Gray Peterson
12-13-2012, 12:22 PM
Everyone's definition of "astounding" varies a little, but at a minimum Gray's effort's approach - and may exceed what is implied by "astounding".

He truly is an exceptional defender of our rights.



Thanks. To wit, I was a plaintiff in one gun rights case involving state preemption in WA. I'm also the plaintiff in a nonresident carry case in Colorado, now in the 10th circuit.

OleCuss
12-13-2012, 1:13 PM
Thanks. To wit, I was a plaintiff in one gun rights case involving state preemption in WA. I'm also the plaintiff in a nonresident carry case in Colorado, now in the 10th circuit.

That would be plenty to deserve our eternal thanks, but we know that you have done (and are doing) a lot more than that.

RMP91
12-13-2012, 1:17 PM
All I have to say is that we should pray very long and hard for the continued health of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. If Mr. Obama has an opportunity to appoint a justice to replace one of the above (he'll already most likely get to nominate Justice Ginsburg's replacement), we are well and truly screwed, whether it be with respect to 2A rights or any other matter of freedom and governmental overreach.

If that happens, can't we just put a hold on any active cases until the conservative majority is restored?

sholling
12-13-2012, 1:22 PM
I'm probably not as young as you might think I am... I'm a lot closer to my retirement years than my high school years.

A couple fundamental flaws in the logic put forward in your post:
It took court victories to get movement and the media beginning to support the protesters to land the victory. Before that they were just beaten or murdered and the media didn't care. Those beatings, murders, and castrations went on for nearly 80 years and when the media weren't covering it up they were secretly supporting it. It took court cases and a change in the media's attitudes and reporting to win civil rights.

Perhaps you've come up with a way to reach tens of millions each and every day and sell them but the problem with gun owners is getting them to do anything is like herding cats. I know because I took your position when we were fighting to block the California AWB. I tried to get hunters involved and heard back that they were fine with it as long as it didn't effect their hunting rifles and shotguns. Other shooters told me it was okay because the AWB didn't effect their wheel guns. Those from out of state just told me to let "Commiefornia" burn.

Sure you can call for a boycott of NBC sports but nobody will participate and you can call for boycotting sponsors but they won't. The biggest fallacy is that NBC cares what we think. The players in the mainstream media have made the decision that nudging the country left trumps profits and they are willing to accept lower income to accomplish that goal. They are willing to accept falling ratings to push their agenda and it's been like that for decades. Do you remember the mass cancellations of the LA Times back in the 80s and 90s because of their leftest slant on the news? Their solution was to move further left just as NBC has done and CNN is doing right now.

My suggestion and I think it's one you will like is to read Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862) for some idea about what works and what does not. In the mean time it does not hurt to be realistic about what a Progressive court will do once they have a majority on the court. Elections have consequences and people need to be reminded of that every day.

Edit: If you think Hollywood cares what we think then think back to the Lethal Weapon movies... Who was the audience for those movies? Pretty much exclusively young gun loving males and their dates - how did Hollywood reward us for our business - with a great big FU in Lethal Weapon 4 which effectively killed the series but gave them the joy of telling their customers and NRA members to get screwed.

sholling
12-13-2012, 1:25 PM
sholling,

With the exception of Earl Warren, every other Justice of the Brown decision was appointed by FDR or Truman.
I stand corrected.

sholling
12-13-2012, 1:31 PM
If that happens, can't we just put a hold on any active cases until the conservative majority is restored?
We can try. But if Obama appoints even one Heller 5 replacement and Hillary 1-2 more it may be 30 years before we have a majority again - if ever. During that time the government can pass all of the oppressive legislation they want and we wouldn't be able to turn to the courts to block it for fear of Heller being officially reversed.

RMP91
12-13-2012, 1:34 PM
We can try. But if Obama appoints even one Heller 5 replacement and Hillary 1-2 more it may be 30 years before we have a majority again - if ever. During that time the government can pass all of the oppressive legislation they want and we wouldn't be able to turn to the courts to block it for fear of Heller being officially reversed.

Honestly, I would not want to risk getting Heller, McDonald, or even Moore overturned over one little bad gun law or lawsuit. Let's not risk it all on one big case and then have the 2nd Amendment essentially nullified in one fell swoop by a Liberal SCOTUS.

I think there's a saying about gambling to describe my thoughts on this: "Quit while you're ahead".... Or so it says...

sholling
12-13-2012, 1:54 PM
Honestly, I would not want to risk getting Heller, McDonald, or even Moore overturned over one little bad gun law or lawsuit. Let's not risk it all on one big case and then have the 2nd Amendment essentially nullified in one fell swoop by a Liberal SCOTUS.

I think there's a saying about gambling to describe my thoughts on this: "Quit while you're ahead".... Or so it says...
Fortunately we have a few years to keep pushing for our rights. Probably time for carry and maybe time for an AWB challenge. What we won't get that we would have gotten with a different election result is a 6-3 or 7-2 super majority for 2nd Amendment rights.

FastFinger
12-13-2012, 2:32 PM
Which brings me to my second point, regarding the media. It's no secret that the only time we hear about guns in the media is when they are painted in a horrific light. Any idea what can stop this travesty? You, me & anyone else reading this can stop it... With our wallets. The reason the media is anti-gun is because the anti-gun groups have made that very popular through lies or shock & awe whenever there is a gun related tragedy. Popular=$$$$, plain & simple. Hypothetically, let's say 20,000,000 pro 2A americans called or wrote NBC SPORTS & their advertisers demanding that Bob Costas be reprimanded (or at least give us fair & balanced reporting instead of an editorial opinion) for his recent anti-gun statements or they will no longer watch NBC or purchase products from their advertisers. It could change a lot of minds in a For-Profit corporation if this was to happen & actually be followed through with. The only reason the media portrays any topic slanted one way or another is due to fact that they are getting our dollars while they do it. Just hypothetical but food for thought.
JD

Not quite correct. Having sat in TV newsrooms for over 25 years I have a pretty good idea of why the news is biased - and it's not because of $$$.

Mainstream news is biased because the day to day decision makers as well as the writers and reporters in the trenches have a very strong personal bias towards liberal ideology. They get into the the biz as urban idealists with a young person's Utopian worldview and their rose colored glasses become more tinted and firmly attached with each passing year. They share the same ideals, reinforce each other, play together, sleep together, and become smug with each other's "holier-than-thou" reports. They vie for the same industry awards and accolades which are handed out not for brave enterprise journalism but for more of the same left wing propaganda.

Anti-gun groups do not drive the agenda, the agenda is already set in the collective newsroom groupthink. The antis are just in a good position to bolster the prevailing attitudes. Major homecourt advantage.

I've lived through more than a few spec interest boycotts against the stations and they just don't have much of an impact. The were one or two that did get some traction and they were boycotts aimed at the sponsors - who then threatened to pull ads.


All I have to say is that we should pray very long and hard for the continued health of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. If Mr. Obama has an opportunity to appoint a justice to replace one of the above (he'll already most likely get to nominate Justice Ginsburg's replacement), we are well and truly screwed, whether it be with respect to 2A rights or any other matter of freedom and governmental overreach.

Here's another cynic's take on the situation...

Not to discount the hard work of all the lawyers and supporters on our side, because in many areas their work is critical, but where the whole enchilada ultimately is made - SCOTUS - often I think none of it much matters.

We're taught that the law is sacrosanct, justice is blind to the foible whims and prejudices of the common man. Millions of dollars and countless hours are spent researching case law and writing position briefs and arguing these critical cases. Then wise men (and Latinas) in dignified black robes set personal opinions aside and render decisions based on strict law and legal reasoning. Come on - that's just B.S. If it were true we wouldn't see SCOTUS decisions split down ideological lines as often as we do. All those papers just present cherry picked bits of data that a judge can use to justify his/her gut instinct.

Sure, with some tax case a judge will probably "play by the rules" - why not? Not much is at stake and it's good to keep up appearances, but on a case such as 2A it comes down to "I personally like/do not like these things - now where can I find some stuff to back up my personal preference?"

The system is rigged, it's a political machine just like every other government bureaucracy, or every other social decision making entity. Bottom line is that SCOTUS has as much integrity as my Home Owners Association. Hopefully 5 out of the 9 HOA board members will always like guns as much as we do.

BTW The "proof" of this is self-evident. Just look at the overwhelming vast powers of the federal government compared to the limited ones granted it in the constitution. The only way to get from there to here is because 9 men "felt" those powers seemed like a good idea at the time - regardless of what the constitution dictated.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 2:36 PM
It took court victories to get movement and the media beginning to support the protesters to land the victory. Before that they were just beaten or murdered and the media didn't care. Those beatings, murders, and castrations went on for nearly 80 years and when the media weren't covering it up they were secretly supporting it. It took court cases and a change in the media's attitudes and reporting to win civil rights.

Perhaps you've come up with a way to reach tens of millions each and every day and sell them but the problem with gun owners is getting them to do anything is like herding cats. I know because I took your position when we were fighting to block the California AWB. I tried to get hunters involved and heard back that they were fine with it as long as it didn't effect their hunting rifles and shotguns. Other shooters told me it was okay because the AWB didn't effect their wheel guns. Those from out of state just told me to let "Commiefornia" burn.

Sure you can call for a boycott of NBC sports but nobody will participate and you can call for boycotting sponsors but they won't. The biggest fallacy is that NBC cares what we think. The players in the mainstream media have made the decision that nudging the country left trumps profits and they are willing to accept lower income to accomplish that goal. They are willing to accept falling ratings to push their agenda and it's been like that for decades. Do you remember the mass cancellations of the LA Times back in the 80s and 90s because of their leftest slant on the news? Their solution was to move further left just as NBC has done and CNN is doing right now.

My suggestion and I think it's one you will like is to read Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862) for some idea about what works and what does not. In the mean time it does not hurt to be realistic about what a Progressive court will do once they have a majority on the court. Elections have consequences and people need to be reminded of that every day.

Edit: If you think Hollywood cares what we think then think back to the Lethal Weapon movies... Who was the audience for those movies? Pretty much exclusively young gun loving males and their dates - how did Hollywood reward us for our business - with a great big FU in Lethal Weapon 4 which effectively killed the series but gave them the joy of telling their customers and NRA members to get screwed.

Firstly, I could care less if a person is a Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Republican... their all about the same anymore. Each group has their own agendas that are going to screw at least one large group of people because it's easier & more profitable to throw someone under the bus than actually get to a common ground or care about your fellow American. As long as that person or group doesn't want to try to take away my individual rights, we'll be just fine.

As far as the media goes, I don't care which way a media organization leans if they can report the news with a fair & balanced point of view. All I want is the facts so I can come to my own conclusions.

Also, I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, probably even more, but I find it really hard to believe that the TV & newspaper media CEOs, board members & high level stockholders would knowingly put themselves in the poor house to only perpetuate a liberal agenda, as you allude to.

I think it's a lot easier to believe that the primary reason for the majority of the large media corporations slanting towards the left-wing point of view is because it continues to be beneficial to their profits through sales due to sensationalism. You have to remember that print or broadcast media's biggest competition anymore is the internet. Media companies have to do whatever they can to get you to read or watch their products instead of doing what you're doing right this very second, browsing the web... even if that means exaggerating or not telling the "whole truth". The people who own or run large corporations of any kind are generally greedy whores... They do whatever they have to do to get that almighty dollar.

If we as a people attempted & succeeded at hurting them where it really counts (their wallet), we would discover that suddenly we would have a lot more media organizations sharing our 2A views... as long as we give them our money.

JD

curtisfong
12-13-2012, 2:59 PM
The media (in CA at least) is biased towards antigunners because they report exactly what LEO tells them to report. They don't fact check LEO (vs other sources) because they assume everything LEO says is 100% accurate.

Everything else is inertia, as JD rightly points out.

sholling
12-13-2012, 3:00 PM
Firstly, I could care less if a person is a Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Republican... their all about the same anymore. Each group has their own agendas that are going to screw at least one large group of people because it's easier & more profitable to throw someone under the bus than actually get to a common ground or care about your fellow American. As long as that person or group doesn't want to try to take away my individual rights, we'll be just fine.

As far as the media goes, I don't care which way a media organization leans if they can report the news with a fair & balanced point of view. All I want is the facts so I can come to my own conclusions.

Also, I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, probably even more, but I find it really hard to believe that the TV & newspaper media CEOs, board members & high level stockholders would knowingly put themselves in the poor house to only perpetuate a liberal agenda, as you allude to.

I think it's a lot easier to believe that the primary reason for the majority of the large media corporations slanting towards the left-wing point of view is because it continues to be beneficial to their profits through sales due to sensationalism. You have to remember that print or broadcast media's biggest competition anymore is the internet. Media companies have to do whatever they can to get you to read or watch their products instead of doing what you're doing right this very second, browsing the web... even if that means exaggerating or not telling the "whole truth". The people who own or run large corporations of any kind are generally greedy whores... They do whatever they have to do to get that almighty dollar.

If we as a people attempted & succeeded at hurting them where it really counts (their wallet), we would discover that suddenly we would have a lot more media organizations sharing our 2A views... as long as we give them our money.

JD
I suggest you read FastFinger's post and then follow up with Barnard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841) both of which will tell you that your assumption about the media's motivations are dead wrong. It's all about peer pressure and preening for peer approval and when everyone that you know and respect and hang out with is a hardcore left-wing antigun wacko you begin to see being a far hardcore left-wing antigun wacko as a principled centrist position.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 3:02 PM
Not quite correct. Having sat in TV newsrooms for over 25 years I have a pretty good idea of why the news is biased - and it's not because of $$$.

Mainstream news is biased because the day to day decision makers as well as the writers and reporters in the trenches have a very strong personal bias towards liberal ideology. They get into the the biz as urban idealists with a young person's Utopian worldview and their rose colored glasses become more tinted and firmly attached with each passing year. They share the same ideals, reinforce each other, play together, sleep together, and become smug with each other's "holier-than-thou" reports. They vie for the same industry awards and accolades which are handed out not for brave enterprise journalism but for more of the same left wing propaganda.

Anti-gun groups do not drive the agenda, the agenda is already set in the collective newsroom groupthink. The antis are just in a good position to bolster the prevailing attitudes. Major homecourt advantage.

I've lived through more than a few spec interest boycotts against the stations and they just don't have much of an impact. The were one or two that did get some traction and they were boycotts aimed at the sponsors - who then threatened to pull ads

OK, I'll bite... using your above theory, please explain this paradoxical situation.

If we, and by "we" I mean a very large group of people, banded together & decided to no longer financially support certain media organizations or their advertisers that we didn't agree with, said media organizations or advertisers would suffer such a loss in revenue that they would at the very least fire the problem employees, or possibly have to change their stance to stay in business & satisfy their owners or at the most, just cease to exist as a business. Seems like if people would get motivated, like I stated before, the problem would eventually fix itself.

JD

PS - I only have a little over a decade of experience in the media world so maybe I never made it long enough to be privy to this big conspiracy. :)

sholling
12-13-2012, 3:06 PM
The media (in CA at least) is biased towards antigunners because they report exactly what LEO tells them to report. They don't fact check LEO (vs other sources) because they assume everything LEO says is 100% accurate.

Everything else is inertia, as JD rightly points out.
This simply isn't true. The media will run with what a CLEO tells them when it reinforces their own perceptions (gun = bad) and assume that same CLEO is a lying POS if what that same CLEO tells them conflicts with the media's preconceived notions. If they want to report guns = evil then they will seek out a CLEO that will pontificate that guns = evil. They will turn on that same CLEO when it gets them another story that they like better.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 3:13 PM
I suggest you read FastFinger's post and then follow up with Barnard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841) both of which will tell you that your assumption about the media's motivations are dead wrong. It's all about peer pressure and preening for peer approval and when everyone that you know and respect and hang out with is a hardcore left-wing antigun wacko you begin to see being a far hardcore left-wing antigun wacko as a principled centrist position.

I'm not disputing that the majority of the media is biased & slanted. What I'm disputing is the attitude that we can do nothing about it. Think about it, every time you purchase any item that is advertised in an advertiser supported media, you are blindly supporting that piece of media unless you have an inside track & somehow make it very clear to the manufacturer or their advertising agency of said item that you are buying it because you love the product & strictly not due to the specific media forums they advertised with that you disagree with... it's actually quite simple.

JD

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 3:26 PM
I suggest you read FastFinger's post and then follow up with Barnard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841) both of which will tell you that your assumption about the media's motivations are dead wrong. It's all about peer pressure and preening for peer approval and when everyone that you know and respect and hang out with is a hardcore left-wing antigun wacko you begin to see being a far hardcore left-wing antigun wacko as a principled centrist position.

Another, even simpler way to look at it:

If a presidential candidate doesn't get enough electoral votes, he doesn't become The President. If a company, any company, doesn't get enough dollars, they don't stay in business.

Unless of course they're a big US bank or auto maker but that's a whole different scandal. :)

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 3:31 PM
Also, I feel like I've been a jerk to the original poster of this thread... I inadvertently but totally hijacked this thread. Sorry.

FastFinger
12-13-2012, 3:33 PM
OK, I'll bite... using your above theory, please explain this paradoxical situation.

If we, and by "we" I mean a very large group of people, banded together & decided to no longer financially support certain media organizations or their advertisers that we didn't agree with, said media organizations or advertisers would suffer such a loss in revenue that they would at the very least fire the problem employees, or possibly have to change their stance to stay in business & satisfy their owners or at the most, just cease to exist as a business. Seems like if people would get motivated, like I stated before, the problem would eventually fix itself.

JD

PS - I only have a little over a decade of experience in the media world so maybe I never made it long enough to be privy to this big conspiracy. :)

JD:

I'm not clear on the paradox you mention, so I can't explain it. But I'll try play along...

Yes, if a large number of viewers were to organize and boycott a news organization or its sponsors to the point that their actions had a deleterious effect on the bottom line - then yes - I think that management would apply pressure to alter the bias of the news. But I've never seen such an large scale action - ever.

Furthermore I don't think there's a vast conspiracy - quite the opposite. A vast conspiracy would require all those liberal news directors and their minions to get together and map out a devious plan to interject bias. The truth is that they don't get together at the higher levels, there's no need to. They're all so deep into the muck that they honestly can't see it around them. Fish in water - pig in mud. The bias just is. I have no doubt that most of them feel in their heart that they are doing the right thing, that they are bravely reporting the truth. And they are - the truth as they perceive it.

Here's another point to ponder... Check out the news ratings. I'm pretty sure that ABC/NBC/CBS still grab the most eyes, but look at cable. CNN was once the powerhouse - the only game in town, no more. All the news oriented shows get trounced by - who? Fox News. Roger Ailes (a news director who proudly wears his bias on his sleeves) is kicking *** and taking in the $$$$. Now you'd think that with the pie growing smaller that one of the nets would wake up and see that there's $$$ to be had by leaning just a tad less left and wee bit more to the right - but not one of them has. I'll be honest - I don't know why at least one of them hasn't made that move - it truly defies all business logic, but they haven't. And it's not because they got together and decided to all sink or swim together. As difficult as this is to believe, I think it's because, again, they're simply not able to see their own bias, and the truth that around 50% of the potential viewing audience does not share their world view. Their myopic tunnel vision is costing them millions and will sink them eventually. (I.E. Newsweek is folding in a few weeks).

What area of media are you in?

RMP91
12-13-2012, 4:10 PM
Fortunately we have a few years to keep pushing for our rights. Probably time for carry and maybe time for an AWB challenge. What we won't get that we would have gotten with a different election result is a 6-3 or 7-2 super majority for 2nd Amendment rights.

So we're in agreement then? We'll have to put the brakes on the big court cases if any of the "Heller 5" leave the court for any reason if we want to keep what we've worked so hard to gain (back).

Jason P
12-13-2012, 4:24 PM
The 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly written, and so are the 10th and 14th Amendments for that matter, yet here we are all arguing something which should be a moot point...

Don't worry, lawyers got us into this ***, lawyers will get us out... and rinse and repeat. I can just imagine 100 years from now calguns.net v23.6 these same types of discussions arguing the clear plain text of Heller.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 4:54 PM
JD:

I'm not clear on the paradox you mention, so I can't explain it. But I'll try play along...

Yes, if a large number of viewers were to organize and boycott a news organization or its sponsors to the point that their actions had a deleterious effect on the bottom line - then yes - I think that management would apply pressure to alter the bias of the news. But I've never seen such an large scale action - ever.

Furthermore I don't think there's a vast conspiracy - quite the opposite. A vast conspiracy would require all those liberal news directors and their minions to get together and map out a devious plan to interject bias. The truth is that they don't get together at the higher levels, there's no need to. They're all so deep into the muck that they honestly can't see it around them. Fish in water - pig in mud. The bias just is. I have no doubt that most of them feel in their heart that they are doing the right thing, that they are bravely reporting the truth. And they are - the truth as they perceive it.

Here's another point to ponder... Check out the news ratings. I'm pretty sure that ABC/NBC/CBS still grab the most eyes, but look at cable. CNN was once the powerhouse - the only game in town, no more. All the news oriented shows get trounced by - who? Fox News. Roger Ailes (a news director who proudly wears his bias on his sleeves) is kicking *** and taking in the $$$$. Now you'd think that with the pie growing smaller that one of the nets would wake up and see that there's $$$ to be had by leaning just a tad less left and wee bit more to the right - but not one of them has. I'll be honest - I don't know why at least one of them hasn't made that move - it truly defies all business logic, but they haven't. And it's not because they got together and decided to all sink or swim together. As difficult as this is to believe, I think it's because, again, they're simply not able to see their own bias, and the truth that around 50% of the potential viewing audience does not share their world view. Their myopic tunnel vision is costing them millions and will sink them eventually. (I.E. Newsweek is folding in a few weeks).

What area of media are you in?

The paradox was simply how could a business stay in business without cashflow, if we chose to cutoff that cashflow.

I was half way joking with the conspiracy comment... that's why I threw in the smiley face. So, if it's not a conspiracy & only ignorance in the upper levels of management that is actually a problem with a fix. For example, I have a number of old friends who were anti-gunners but after much debate and much thought on their end to one simple question I asked them, they changed their mind. My question was different variations on the most popular but simple argument involving firearms & self-defense... an example, it's 330AM, you hear glass breaking & immediately are awoken. You discover 3 large, unwelcome men in your home, they say they're there to kill you & your family! Do you want a phone to call 911 & hope the police can get to your home within the remaining 5-10 seconds you might have to live or would you rather have a pistol that you've been properly trained with to protect yourself & family? Once you establish this with the person the rest is just educating them with accurate facts.

What I'm trying to say is that people's opinions on anything can change under the right circumstances. The problem is that, as stated in an earlier post in this thread, the large majority of proponents of 2A are entirely too quiet about their views in the public eye. 99.9% of the time anyone in the media that shows their appreciation for the 2nd amendment is portrayed as an irrational, antiquated nut. All we have to do is organize a movement to change public opinion.

Another hypothetical, let's say 6,000-10,000 pro 2A Californians were outside the court house at the next noteworthy court hearing, not just a gun related court hearing, any noteworthy hearing. We would only be there to assemble for a peaceful protest of sorts. It's impossible to believe that this would not garner at least regional news media, quite possibly even national news media. Before anyone reading this says it, the news media will, without a doubt, make us look like a bunch of crazy gun nuts as they normally do. Will the news media be able to paint us as loons on the 20th, 50th or 100th protest without incident. Plus, all these protests put a public, human face on 2A proponents in the media and more importantly, in person. It's not as easy to call someone crazy when you get to know them & discover that they are sane, rational people.

We also need to remember that the human race as a whole are like lemmings... but worse, the human race is intelligent enough to know they are walking off the cliff but they do it anyway because it's the status quo. All we have to do is make our views the status quo again... that's right, again! We're too far separated from our own history to remember that for the largest part of our existence everyone carried a weapon of some sort, if they had one. If they didn't have a gun, they carried a knife. If they didn't have a knife, they carried a club.

Change in our favor will come slowly even if we do everything right but if we do nothing at all we are doomed to go farther down the path that we are already on.

JD

PS - I was a radio guy for years until I "graduated" to doing commercial & animation V/O work (which pays sooooo much better).

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 4:57 PM
So we're in agreement then? We'll have to put the brakes on the big court cases if any of the "Heller 5" leave the court for any reason if we want to keep what we've worked so hard to gain (back).

Or, we could do better than that & change the mass public opinion so worrying about which judge is in the chair won't matter nearly as much.

JD

RMP91
12-13-2012, 5:03 PM
Or, we could do better than that & change the mass public opinion so worrying about which judge is in the chair won't matter nearly as much.

JD

If rulings are being influenced by public opinion, then what's the point of having a court to begin with? Mob Mentality much?

kf6tac
12-13-2012, 5:13 PM
If rulings are being influenced by public opinion, then what's the point of having a court to begin with? Mob Mentality much?

I don't think he means changing public opinion in an effort to influence the Court. I think he's referring to changing public opinion so that we don't have bad gun laws on the books in the first instance, so we won't have to hang our hopes on what nine justices have to say about it.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 5:15 PM
If rulings are being influenced by public opinion, then what's the point of having a court to begin with? Mob Mentality much?

Sorry, you took what I said the wrong way and I hate to break it to you but a lot of decisions in courts all over the US are influenced by public opinion. When the 2A is taken literally as it was intended & written, it's a pretty cut & dry topic. Public opinion is what leads to problems with interpretations of the 2nd Amendment when complex interpretation isn't needed.

What I was referring to about public opinion is that if we change the publicized opinion on guns. We wouldn't rely on courts hardly at all for firearm related issues if public opinion on firearms was changed to what we already know to be true, the right to keep & bear arms guarantees our freedom & safety.

JD

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 5:16 PM
I don't think he means changing public opinion in an effort to influence the Court. I think he's referring to changing public opinion so that we don't have bad gun laws on the books in the first instance, so we won't have to hang our hopes on what nine justices have to say about it.

Exactly! You even beat me to it... :)

sholling
12-13-2012, 5:42 PM
I'm not disputing that the majority of the media is biased & slanted. What I'm disputing is the attitude that we can do nothing about it. Think about it, every time you purchase any item that is advertised in an advertiser supported media, you are blindly supporting that piece of media unless you have an inside track & somehow make it very clear to the manufacturer or their advertising agency of said item that you are buying it because you love the product & strictly not due to the specific media forums they advertised with that you disagree with... it's actually quite simple.

JD
Lead the boycott. I don't think it'll help but I'll go along. I've been boycotting Levi products for 20 years or so and KTLA (Los Angeles) for 10 or so and all but football on CBS and NBC for years but I don't think they've noticed. 15-20 years ago you could shame a news director into cleaning up their coverage a bit but those days are long gone. Back in the 90s I responded to weeks of over the top gun owner bashing by writing a letter to news news director and included a full copy of the Journalist's Guide To Gun Violence (the the satire notice at the bottom) along with a letter congratulating her for 100% compliance with the guide. I don't know if it helped but they lightened up for a few months. Things today have gone so MSNBC on all of the networks that I doubt that they'd even understand they were being b-slapped for being idiots.

RMP91
12-13-2012, 5:46 PM
Sorry, you took what I said the wrong way and I hate to break it to you but a lot of decisions in courts all over the US are influenced by public opinion. When the 2A is taken literally as it was intended & written, it's a pretty cut & dry topic. Public opinion is what leads to problems with interpretations of the 2nd Amendment when complex interpretation isn't needed.

What I was referring to about public opinion is that if we change the publicized opinion on guns. We wouldn't rely on courts hardly at all for firearm related issues if public opinion on firearms was changed to what we already know to be true, the right to keep & bear arms guarantees our freedom & safety.

JD

So, what you're saying is that if a solid majority of the American People are behind gun rights, then we would never have to worry about the courts again, even if Heller/McDonald/Moore are simultaneously overturned? (forgive me if I'm way off the mark, but that's just what your post literally translated into for me...)

Tincon
12-13-2012, 5:47 PM
It is very possible for SCOTUS to overrule itself, and it has happened many times. About 20 years ago the Court set out four factors to be analyzed in decisions to overrule.

1. the workability of the rule,

2. the extent to which the public has relied on the rule,

3. relevant changes in legal doctrine, and

4. changes in facts or perceptions of facts.

Of course the nature of being the highest court means not only can they interpret those factors to mean whatever they like, they can also overrule the ruling that created them and develop some new test, or none at all.

So the answer to the question in the title is yes.

With Obama having the possibility to turn SCOTUS into a lefty majority, what happens to all of the rulings in favor of the 2A if that becomes a reality?


While no one can predict the future, clearly if there are enough justices on the court willing to overturn Heller, then Heller could be overturned.


Can the new court hear a new case that challenges the 2A and rule differently than what the court ruled in Heller and McDonald, thus reversing the direction that our courts are taking with the 2A?
Yes. Either a law would need to be enforced by lower courts that would be unconstitutional under Heller and its progeny, and a person affected would appeal up to SCOTUS, or a lower court could refuse to enforce based on Heller and the government could appeal and seek Cert.


Or do current SCOTUS members have to respect prior rulings?
They should, and probably do, respect them to some extent, but they are not legally bound by them. That said, if they go directly against a recent precedent, that is really just asking the Court to do the same to them as soon as the make-up of the Court shifts again.

As the more "liberal" Justices might well have some things that are more important to them than 2A, they might prefer to do less damage to it, lest their own rulings on other issues be similarly attacked in the next decade or so.

A bigger problem might be if we don't get the limitations on the right outside the home, and ideally a scrutiny standard, in place before the make-up changes. I think we probably will, but that is a bigger risk than the court overruling itself.

sholling
12-13-2012, 5:49 PM
So we're in agreement then? We'll have to put the brakes on the big court cases if any of the "Heller 5" leave the court for any reason if we want to keep what we've worked so hard to gain (back).
Yes we agree.

BTW despite what anybody tells you the supreme court is sometimes swayed by public opinion. Not all of the time but enough of it to matter, for example it's pretty obvious that Roberts' opinion in the Obamacare case was heavily influenced by fear of being delegitimized by the mainstream media. They had taken a heck of pubic beating after upholding the 1st Amendment and he was in no mood for another mainstream media beating for tossing out Obamacare.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 6:17 PM
So, what you're saying is that if a solid majority of the American People are behind gun rights, then we would never have to worry about the courts again, even if Heller/McDonald/Moore are simultaneously overturned? (forgive me if I'm way off the mark, but that's just what your post literally translated into for me...)

No, I didn't state anything like that. Let me give you a proper translation... :)

All of the court cases you referenced, like most SCOTUS cases do, had split votes. What this means is that some of the votes weren't based on empirical evidence or a literal interpretation of the US Constitution or they would've undoubtedly all been in agreement and voted the same way instead of a split vote. Any interpretation of Constitutional law other than those based on empirical evidence or a literal interpretation are only the opinion of what the SC justice thinks the law might mean. Since the SC justices are part of the public and they are using their respective opinions for the laws, than their opinions can be influenced by the rest of our opinions.

Does that make sense?

JD

Tincon
12-13-2012, 6:27 PM
All of the court cases you referenced, like most SCOTUS cases do, had split votes. What this means is that some of the votes weren't based on empirical evidence or a literal interpretation of the US Constitution or they would've undoubtedly all been in agreement and voted the same way instead of a split vote. Any interpretation of Constitutional law other than those based on empirical evidence or a literal interpretation are only the opinion of what the SC justice thinks the law might mean. Since the SC justices are part of the public and they are using their respective opinions for the laws, than their opinions can be influenced by the rest of our opinions.


That makes perfect sense. Much more sense however, than the manner in which federal courts actually handle statutory interpretation, which is of course quite different. Here is a nice summary of the principals courts do use, if you are interested: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

Gunlawyer
12-13-2012, 6:30 PM
As for the federal and state supreme courts, each is free to overrule its own precedents. State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997); Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 93 (1995). Under what circumstances a high court should exercise its discretion to reverse itself, however, is the topic of much scholarly debate; e.g., Michael Sinclair, Precedent, Super-Precedent, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 363 (2007); Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights, 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 155 (Oct. 2006) (discussing “super stare decisis”).

The doctrine of stare decisis is one of the first things learned in the 1st year of law school. It basically means that the lower courts follow the upper courts and upper courts dont reverse prior decisions made by their own court earlier so that the rule of law remains stable, predictable and fundamental in our society (best I can do in laymens terms).

It operates differently in the Federal system than in the California system and if you want to read more on those differences then this is a good article.
http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=9375

Another good stare decisis article here.
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/67-2Kozel.pdf

Hope this helps.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 6:32 PM
Lead the boycott. I don't think it'll help but I'll go along. I've been boycotting Levi products for 20 years or so and KTLA (Los Angeles) for 10 or so and all but football on CBS and NBC for years but I don't think they've noticed. 15-20 years ago you could shame a news director into cleaning up their coverage a bit but those days are long gone. Back in the 90s I responded to weeks of over the top gun owner bashing by writing a letter to news news director and included a full copy of the Journalist's Guide To Gun Violence (the the satire notice at the bottom) along with a letter congratulating her for 100% compliance with the guide. I don't know if it helped but they lightened up for a few months. Things today have gone so MSNBC on all of the networks that I doubt that they'd even understand they were being b-slapped for being idiots.

Sholling, thanks for your support. I have been looking into planning something for mass exposure since I started my rants in this thread. What it will be exactly, I don't know yet. As soon as I find the right plan of action I will post it on here.

Thanks Again, JD

RMP91
12-13-2012, 6:34 PM
As for the federal and state supreme courts, each is free to overrule its own precedents. State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997); Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 93 (1995). Under what circumstances a high court should exercise its discretion to reverse itself, however, is the topic of much scholarly debate; e.g., Michael Sinclair, Precedent, Super-Precedent, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 363 (2007); Lawrence B. Solum, The Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights, 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 155 (Oct. 2006) (discussing “super stare decisis”).

The doctrine of stare decisis is one of the first things learned in the 1st year of law school. It basically means that the lower courts follow the upper courts and upper courts dont reverse prior decisions made by their own court earlier so that the rule of law remains stable, predictable and fundamental in our society (best I can do in laymens terms).

It operates differently in the Federal system than in the California system and if you want to read more on those differences then this is a good article.
http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=9375

Another good stare decisis article here.
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/67-2Kozel.pdf

Hope this helps.

So in other words, it is in fact possible for Heller/McDonald/Moore to be overturned but it's extremely unlikely and the Courts don't just rule over themselves or overturn past rulings overnight?

Gunlawyer
12-13-2012, 7:00 PM
So in other words, it is in fact possible for Heller/McDonald/Moore to be overturned but it's extremely unlikely and the Courts don't just rule over themselves or overturn past rulings overnight?

Thats correct but if Obama gets some of the conservative justices changed in the next 4 years then I wouldnt be surprised if they really tried to limit the 2a. IMHO sad but true. Lets hope no conservitive justice dies in the next 4 years. I cant see them retiring until a conservative President is elected or until the next President is elected. I know Ive listened to Scalia and Thomas speak live a few times and cant imagine they will retire and give their slot to an Obama nomination. Also Alito and Roberts are young so not too much to worry there but they are not Scalia and Thomas minded IMHO from a 2a and conservative view. Now Kennedy hes a toss up whether he will retire IMHO and shift things dramatically. I think not but not sure.

Elections have consequences and unfortunately alot of the USA population is oblivious to reality and just want more stuff and the bad evil rich people to pay more. Forget the fact that they worked 12+hrs a day seven days a week for years to get their company rolling and making money while the others worked 9 to 5 and went to the lake each weekend to play. I wont turn this discussion into a politics discussion further. This just my two cents.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 7:05 PM
That makes perfect sense. Much more sense however, than the manner in which federal courts actually handle statutory interpretation, which is of course quite different. Here is a nice summary of the principals courts do use, if you are interested: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

Granted, I simplified my answer as much as possible so no one else might misinterpret it and yes, in a perfect world all federal judges, SCOTUS included, would follow the rules of statutory interpretation and never let personal opinions, experiences or political agendas figure into their decisions but that isn't a reality. Also in a perfect world no one, even criminals, would ever use a firearm for anything other than target practice, competition or hunting but sadly, that isn't reality either.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 7:09 PM
Elections have consequences and unfortunately alot of the USA population is oblivious to reality and just want more stuff and the bad evil rich people to pay more. Forget the fact that they worked 12+hrs a day seven days a week for years to get their company rolling and making money while the others worked 9 to 5 and went to the lake each weekend to play. I wont turn this discussion into a politics discussion further. This just my two cents.

Amen, brother!

Tincon
12-13-2012, 7:17 PM
Granted, I simplified my answer as much as possible so no one else might misinterpret it and yes, in a perfect world all federal judges, SCOTUS included, would follow the rules of statutory interpretation and never let personal opinions, experiences or political agendas figure into their decisions but that isn't a reality.

I didn't mean to imply that it was, just that by those rules there can very much be more than one "literal" interpretation.

curtisfong
12-13-2012, 7:24 PM
This simply isn't true. The media will run with what a CLEO tells them when it reinforces their own perceptions (gun = bad) and assume that same CLEO is a lying POS if what that same CLEO tells them conflicts with the media's preconceived notions. If they want to report guns = evil then they will seek out a CLEO that will pontificate that guns = evil. They will turn on that same CLEO when it gets them another story that they like better.

In markets that matter in CA (SF, LA), CLEOs will never say anything even remotely pro-gun. Ever. You really are guessing at what the typical CLEO/journalist relationship is like.

jdmcgee
12-13-2012, 9:04 PM
I didn't mean to imply that it was, just that by those rules there can very much be more than one "literal" interpretation.

Valid point... I'm no lawyer so thank you much for that link by the way. Very interesting reading.

sholling
12-13-2012, 9:40 PM
In markets that matter in CA (SF, LA), CLEOs will never say anything even remotely pro-gun. Ever. You really are guessing at what the typical CLEO/journalist relationship is like.
How did the buddy buddy relationship you assume work out for the Rodney King cops? Or the CLEO in the Zimmerman case? The media use the race card earned or not earned on LEOs for ratings every chance they get. Reporters will use CLEOs when they say the right words but they will go after them when they are no longer useful or when they smell blood. The useful idiots in the media will use the useful idiot CLEOs when useful and kick them to the curb when they are expendable just the same way they will to you or me.

curtisfong
12-13-2012, 10:38 PM
How did the buddy buddy relationship you assume work out for the Rodney King cops?

The cops really were in the wrong. Provably, undeniably so. No in depth fact checking required. The DA said as much. And the case had absolutely nothing to do with gun control.

Or the CLEO in the Zimmerman case?

Not CA.

The useful idiots in the media will use the useful idiot CLEOs when useful and kick them to the curb when they are expendable just the same way they will to you or me.

You are making assumptions, as I said. You simply don't know how the CLEO/journalist relationship works in both LA and SF. It doesn't work even REMOTELY like that.

Alan Block
12-13-2012, 11:32 PM
If it was easy to overturn precedent, you would think RvWade would have been overturned with the 5/4 court we have.

GettoPhilosopher
12-13-2012, 11:48 PM
I do not share the optimism of those above who believe a liberal court would allow Heller to stand for the following reasons. Liberals are not guided by the rule of law. They have no regard for the truth, history or legal precedence unless it comports with their ideology. They are best characterized as following the rule that the end justifies the means. Heller is not a legal precedence that comports with their ideology and they will use whatever means they can to overturn it.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Worth noting....as a left-leaning gun rights advocate, I get 10x more crap from gunnies on the right than I ever do from friends on the left.

Honestly, gay pacifist vegans are like "Huh, ok, I don't think I really agree, but I can respect your POV and your right to make different decisions on firearms ownership than I do", Calgunners post crap like the above.

On topic, I think people need to pull out of their own heads and their own perspectives for a minute and realize that courts *generally* shift very slowly. Heller took decades of increased ownership, resurgent gun rights movement, and the conceal carry movement before they said "well, most states and most people think this anyways, and we agree".

It's the other side of the same coin that brought you "Two SCOTUS wins in two years....but I can't buy a machine gun cash and carry at my local wal-mart yet THUS WE ARE LOSING". No, Obama's not going to make one SCOTUS appointment, then have a case 5 months later where the Supremes say "LOL, NVM!" and rescind Heller/McDonald/et al. The worry would be a curtailing of the right, a la the 14th Amendment; say, Heller and McDonald support your right to keep and carry a gun for self defense....but only in your home, and no semi autos, and it has to be on the roster, and you have to get a permit, and...and....and....

As Gray said, a sudden about-face like that is nigh unprecedented in US history and would probably cause a constitutional convention.

GettoPhilosopher
12-14-2012, 12:44 AM
Not to discount the hard work of all the lawyers and supporters on our side, because in many areas their work is critical, but where the whole enchilada ultimately is made - SCOTUS - often I think none of it much matters.

We're taught that the law is sacrosanct, justice is blind to the foible whims and prejudices of the common man. Millions of dollars and countless hours are spent researching case law and writing position briefs and arguing these critical cases. Then wise men (and Latinas) in dignified black robes set personal opinions aside and render decisions based on strict law and legal reasoning. Come on - that's just B.S. If it were true we wouldn't see SCOTUS decisions split down ideological lines as often as we do. All those papers just present cherry picked bits of data that a judge can use to justify his/her gut instinct.

So much of this despair could be fixed by simple fact checks, even at friggin Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Judicial_leanin gs)

Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit: Thomas has most often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing) that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.

...

According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.

...

In the October 2011 term, the Court decided 75 cases. Of these, 33 (about 44%) were decided unanimously, and 15 (about 20%, the same percentage as in the previous term) were decided by a vote of 5–4. Of the latter 15, the Court divided along the perceived ideological lines 10 times, with Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) five times, and with the liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) five times.


44% decided unanimously. 20% or less, on average, are 5-4 decisions, and a good portion of those aren't along political lines.

Wah wah.

FastFinger
12-14-2012, 8:39 AM
"Barely 20%" is pretty significant. Plus the cases that concern this community don't come up that often, so the concern isn't for those other 80%, or even 90% of the remaining 20%, the concern about ideology driving a decision is just about those few cases that may arise around 2A issues.

Clearly I'm not a constitutional scholar, a constitutional neophyte is more like it, but even I can read (in one sitting) the Second Amendment, and that fact that SCOTUS has allowed it to be adulterated to its pre Heller/McDonald status to me is prima facia evidence that personal whim is all the legal reasoning some justices rely on to reach their decisions in some cases.

The wikipedia entry notwithstanding do you think that if SCOTUS had one more Obama appointee and one less conservative that either Heller or McDonald would have been adjudicated as they were?

sholling
12-14-2012, 9:18 AM
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
I tend to think the same of Obama supporters who will cheerlead for yet another antigun activist to be appointed to the supreme court and hundreds of other antigun activitists to be appointed to lower courts. :rolleyes:

As Gray said, a sudden about-face like that is nigh unprecedented in US history and would probably cause a constitutional convention.
Here he is correct but there is also little possibility of positive change because the numbers just aren't there to get anything but a watered down and heavily restricted "right" if anything at all. More likely is the convention being hijacked to legitimize additional statism. Of course it also depends on whether a Progressive court chooses to dismantle the 2nd Amendment in one big bite or spreads the pain of losing the individual right to keep and bear arms out over 2-3 years in order to reduce the level of outrage to below the threshold for successfully creating a demand for a convention.

So much of this despair could be fixed by simple fact checks, even at
The fact remains that a quick reading of the McDonald dissent shoots your argument completely full of holes. The 4 Progressives made it crystal clear that they will reverse Heller through one means or another at the earliest opportunity. You can deny it all day but it's there in black and white.

As for Thomas one only has to realize the vast number of blatantly unconstitutional rulings to come out of the supreme court starting with Cruikshank and the Slaughterhouse cases followed by the New Deal decisions. Working to overturn unconstitutional decisions and restore POI is based on respect for the constitution not personal politics. On the other hand the McDonald dissent was based purely on a desire to strip our rights and then wrapped in historical fiction designed to give it a fig leaf of legitimacy.