PDA

View Full Version : Heller v. D.C.


Piper
08-11-2007, 9:56 PM
Now this is fascinating. And if it's true, I'm going to be a little ticked off at the NRA.

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1185267998258

hoffmang
08-11-2007, 10:34 PM
There have been strategic disagreements between Gura and NRA. However, NRA heard pretty clearly from their members at the last annual meeting that we members want this case heard.

As such, you'll see NRA file a very serious Amicus Brief in the case at SCOTUS just as they did for the court of appeals.

And notice who is now maligning NRA in that article. Bogus is not on our side...

-Gene

Piper
08-12-2007, 8:07 AM
The thing I find frustrating about this story is the educated ignorance on both sides. I think deep down, both sides have some degree of fear of firearms. Or at least they think that only the "right kind of people" should have them, and I'm not thinking about felons or 5150's when I say that.

The fact of the matter is, politicians have been the problem, from creating the first racist laws preventing former slaves from possessing firearms, to the current D.C. gun ban. And that has caused through coercion, citizens to give up a right that's so essential to liberty. And all of the supreme courts before the Roberts court in my opinion barricaded themselves behind chambers doors and hid from actually having to make a decision on this issue. That in itself is a sad statement about our judicial branches past. So, it will be interesting to see just how far our "pro-gun" justices will take this, or will they do only the minimum and let this be just another case that is cited at some future time.

dfletcher
08-12-2007, 8:12 AM
As I read the story and NRA's hesitancy at moving forward I thought "What if we lose by 5 to 4 vote - and 1 month after the decision Mr Justice Stevens drops dead. Timing is important, although I share your concern.

hoffmang
08-12-2007, 9:58 AM
Piper,

I agree, but I'm pointing out that you need to think about the author writing this. There was in the past NRA resistance because NRA was honestly worried that we'd all lose. That's changed based on court composition and NRA Member desires.

Everyone often underestimates the practical outcome of a win or a loss on something like this. Just winning this at the Circuit level is a win that can only be lost by having SCOTUS grant Cert and rule against. Even a lame pro individual rights ruling is going to be enough to finish turning the academic tide.

No cert is a huge win. All Federal firearms laws will be challengeable by anyone in the US by filing in DC.

-Gene

Piper
08-12-2007, 11:44 AM
Hoffmang,

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Tony Mauro?

I've read the opinions of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts and their positions are pretty straight forward. Given the current liberal law scholars leaning toward the individual rights camp, how difficult would it be to sway those justices that are sitting on the fence?

It would seem that with all the relevant documentation from the framers, and all of the precedence that was set prior to laws that were outright biased, bigoted and racist, being enacted, no one except a complete moron would accept the collective rights view. Well, either that, or someone whos view is so myopic from hoplophobia that they flat out have no problem with violating the constitution. So, in my opinion, it's time for the "Fearsome Four" to put their money where their mouth is and end this century old infringement of everyones right.

bwiese
08-12-2007, 12:30 PM
Some old history keeps getting brought up.

Yes, when all this started some time ago, the NRA was afraid of court composition matters. You don't bring up a case to the Supreme Court, you bring up a case to a Supreme Court - its actions, reactions, moods, etc. change over time and with composition.

With Roberts and Alito on board, everything changed. So much so Chuckie Schumer is running panicked.

For those of you who are Bush bashers, his cagey dancing around the nonsigning of the Fed AWB renewal and his appointments of two seemingly proRKBA members to the Supreme Court are probably the most defining pro-RKBA actions of a sitting President in many decades.

Charliegone
08-12-2007, 12:34 PM
Some old history keeps getting brought up.

Yes, when all this started some time ago, the NRA was afraid of court composition matters. You don't bring up a case to the Supreme Court, you bring up a case to a Supreme Court - its actions, reactions, moods, etc. change over time and with composition.

With Roberts and Alito on board, everything changed. So much so Chuckie Schumer is running panicked.

For those of you who are Bush bashers, his cagey dancing around the nonsigning of the Fed AWB renewal and his appointments of two seemingly proRKBA members to the Supreme Court are probably the most defining pro-RKBA actions of a sitting President in many decades.


I just hope Chuckie doesn't go around killing people..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/84/Chuckydoll.jpg/704px-Chuckydoll.jpg

:p Can't wait for this to get started.

hoffmang
08-12-2007, 3:14 PM
Tony Mauro isn't anybody particularly special, but he is a first amendment wonk and a correspondent for both law.com and USA Today. I doubt he's neccessarily sympathetic to the individual rights view - though I also doubt he's strongly against. When he's interviewing Carl Bogus on NRA - well, that's like interviewing me on the Brady Campaign. Fair and balanced its not.

-Gene

bg
08-12-2007, 7:34 PM
Well I afeared that with the murders today at a church in Missouri, things might
just get a prejudice come the show..

Librarian
08-27-2007, 4:53 PM
What is the status of this case? It's now the end of August, it was my impression that the *extended* deadline for DC to file for cert occured at the end of this month? Is this true, and if it is, what's going on? Do we have any idea when/if the SCOTUS will hear the case?

They filed for an extension of 30 days, which means it's due September 5.
link (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/gun_owners_urge_1.html)
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., on Wednesday gave the District of Columbia government an extension of time until Sept. 5 to file its appeal challenging an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment by the D.C. Circuit Court. The opposition to the request for an extension was not received at the Court, at least not before the Chief Justice acted, it is understood.

Can't tell about when - the thing the City will file by Sept 5 is the petition for certiorari, and the court can't officially consider whether they'll hear a case until they're officially asked. I wouldn't be surprised if justices were considering it UN officially, but they're not talking about it if they are.

SCOTUSBLOG also reviews a book here (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/08/prepping_the_co.html):Despite one possible implication of its title, this is not an argument that the Court should decline to rule on the Heller case and the scope of the Second Amendment. But it is a useful reminder that the rift in American public culture over gun rights vs. gun control is so deep that it would not be resolved, no matter how the Court were to rule, by a new definition of constitutional meaning. .The reason, simply stated, is that the Second Amendment is a ground that both sides want to conquer in the culture wars, and the battle has much more to do, according to Tushnet, with "how we understand ourselves as Americans." There will be no answer to that ultimate question, he notes, "because we are always trying to figure out who we are, and revising our self-understanding." So, he suggests, "the battle over the Second Amendment will continue." From "Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns." I like that summary better than the review stuff at Amazon. preorder (http://www.amazon.com/Out-Range-Constitution-Battle-Inalienable/dp/0195304241/ref=sr_1_1/104-5645754-7740740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188259056&sr=8-1)

Might be worth about $14.

ghettoshecky
08-27-2007, 5:07 PM
Senators grilled Alito about his 1996 dissent in United States v. Rybar, during his tenure as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In that case, Alito said Congress had overstepped its powers under the commerce clause when it passed a ban on machine gun ownership.

I like Machine Gun Sammy

tiki
08-27-2007, 5:27 PM
Why is this all of a sudden being referred to as Heller? Wasn't it Parker?

Piper
08-27-2007, 5:33 PM
Heller was one of the parties in Parker v. D.C. and he's the only one that they found had standing. So now it's actually D.C. v. Heller.

Solidsnake87
08-27-2007, 6:29 PM
some conservative legal scholars such as Robert Bork oppose the individual right view

You can oppose the individual right all you want or choose not to take advantage of it. The point is that the individual right is there and those that desire firearms have their rights to them. If the right is taken away then I'm sure there will be violence/riots in some areas of the country in protest of the matter.

The national guard may be considered the organized national "militia" but it is run and operated by the govt. Real militias are run by the people. If the individual right to bear arms is denied than well-armed and regulated militias consisting of citizens will be impossible to form. I wish these people would just realize this was written after a time of intense war with the British. The British tried very hard to sieze and secure weaponry from us so that we could not overthrow their tyrannical regime. Thanks to more than a few patriotic men, we won our freedom though great losses of life and hard combat. Although its horrible to say this, sometimes negotiations are one-sided and violence is the only option. The Second Amendment is there to ensure that the US people of any time period have the power to defend themselves from others, hunt for food, form militias, and have the ability to overthrow a corrupt or abusive government if needed.

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 8:05 PM
Piper,

After asking the People who Should Know, they aren't sure it will be recaptioned to Heller from Parker.

-Gene

Piper
08-27-2007, 8:49 PM
Piper,

After asking the People who Should Know, they aren't sure it will be recaptioned to Heller from Parker.

-Gene

I understood it to be a done deal. Oh well, whatever they call it, I just hope they do the right thing.

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 8:56 PM
D.C., not Gura/Levy called it that in their request for additional time to file Cert. The Cert grant will probably but that issue to rest.

-Gene