PDA

View Full Version : Parker/Heller hearing November 9...

EastBayRidge
10-24-2007, 4:59 PM
according to SCOTUSBLOG (sponsored by Akin Gump, DC's lawyers)... note that there are two petitions in question, not one, and the commenter indicates the SC may rephrase the issues presented themselves...

More here. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justices-to-consider-gun-case-nov-9/)

10-24-2007, 5:10 PM
From the blog:
"The earliest that an order on the fate of the two cases would emerge is probably Tuesday, Nov. 13. The case, if granted, would probably be heard in February or March."

From http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/registerofactions.html
November 19th, 2007 Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Looks like mid-November 2007 will be an important time for us, esp in PRK! :D

gazzavc
10-24-2007, 8:25 PM
How will a favourable descion affect us in PRK ??

Gaz

five.five-six
10-24-2007, 8:27 PM
How will a favourable descion affect us in PRK ??

Gaz

would you like to own a a suppressed MP5?

Jack_Bauer
10-24-2007, 8:32 PM
would you like to own a a suppressed MP5?

Parker is a good starting point for 2nd am. rights. It does not mean that we can go out the next day and legally but a suppressed machine gun. We still have an uphill battle.

gazzavc
10-24-2007, 8:34 PM
No, but a real Bren Gun would be nice...........
http://photos.imageevent.com/gazzavc/editingjunk/bren.gif

gazzavc
10-24-2007, 8:35 PM
Seriously though, would it nullify this Califonia assault weapons nonsense?
Or would they still be able to keep it on the books.

Gaz

Muzz
10-24-2007, 8:40 PM
Seriously though, would it nullify this Califonia assault weapons nonsense?
Or would they still be able to keep it on the books.

Gaz

We're going to have to wait and see. I look forward to years of cases to undo all sorts of stupid liberal garbage.

five.five-six
10-24-2007, 9:14 PM
No, but a real Bren Gun would be nice...........
http://photos.imageevent.com/gazzavc/editingjunk/bren.gif
NICE:)

or a new left side plate for my 1919 :D

CCWFacts
10-24-2007, 9:31 PM
Parker is a good starting point for 2nd am. rights. It does not mean that we can go out the next day and legally but a suppressed machine gun. We still have an uphill battle.

Exactly. I got flamed when I pointed out initially that Parker isn't going to do anything about open carry in California. Well, it won't, just like Brown v. Board per se didn't do anything to desegregate schools except for the one school it was filed in. What it did was it set up a strong precedent which made hundreds of other cases viable. And Brown v. Board is still being used in cases today; it still isn't complete "finished".

The same will happen with this case. Even if it goes 100% the way we want it to, there will need to be literally hundreds of follow-up cases in various states and at various levels to throw out laws.

Let's see, the supressed MP5. At least the following would need to be established:

0. The 2A is incorporated and applies in California.

1. The 2A applies to weapons like an MP5. The Heller case is only over a common pistol.

2. 922(o) is invalid.

3. The BATF must accept the tax payment and process the apps and can't sit on them for a decade.

4. The CA DoJ must issue MG permits, or perhaps the CA DoJ permit system itself must be thrown out.

5. Even with a DoJ permit, the MP5 is probably still a CA AW, so the CA AWB would need to be thrown out or modified.

6. The large-cap mag ban would need to be thrown out unless you want an MG with only 11 rounds in it.

7. You would need to create a legal entity to own it, or it would take another suit to force a CLEO to sign off on the app or get rid of that requirement.

So... even if Heller is an absolute victory, there would still need to be 6 to 8 more lawsuits between you and that MP5. And layer on top of that that the CA state government would be consulting with lawyers to figure out ways to draft laws to hinder all of this.

Bizcuits
10-24-2007, 9:42 PM
I just want a semi auto, AR15, with a pistol grip and detachable mags. With no grey area for me to possibley be jailed. Keep your suppressors, and full auto etc..

Exactly. I got flamed when I pointed out initially that Parker isn't going to do anything about open carry in California. Well, it won't, just like Brown v. Board per se didn't do anything to desegregate schools except for the one school it was filed in. What it did was it set up a strong precedent which made hundreds of other cases viable. And Brown v. Board is still being used in cases today; it still isn't complete "finished".

The same will happen with this case. Even if it goes 100% the way we want it to, there will need to be literally hundreds of follow-up cases in various states and at various levels to throw out laws.

Let's see, the supressed MP5. At least the following would need to be established:

0. The 2A is incorporated and applies in California.

1. The 2A applies to weapons like an MP5. The Heller case is only over a common pistol.

2. 922(o) is invalid.

3. The BATF must accept the tax payment and process the apps and can't sit on them for a decade.

4. The CA DoJ must issue MG permits, or perhaps the CA DoJ permit system itself must be thrown out.

5. Even with a DoJ permit, the MP5 is probably still a CA AW, so the CA AWB would need to be thrown out or modified.

6. The large-cap mag ban would need to be thrown out unless you want an MG with only 11 rounds in it.

7. You would need to create a legal entity to own it, or it would take another suit to force a CLEO to sign off on the app or get rid of that requirement.

So... even if Heller is an absolute victory, there would still need to be 6 to 8 more lawsuits between you and that MP5. And layer on top of that that the CA state government would be consulting with lawyers to figure out ways to draft laws to hinder all of this.

moulton
10-24-2007, 9:50 PM
Exactly. I got flamed when I pointed out initially that Parker isn't going to do anything about open carry in California. Well, it won't, just like Brown v. Board per se didn't do anything to desegregate schools except for the one school it was filed in. What it did was it set up a strong precedent which made hundreds of other cases viable. And Brown v. Board is still being used in cases today; it still isn't complete "finished".

The same will happen with this case. Even if it goes 100% the way we want it to, there will need to be literally hundreds of follow-up cases in various states and at various levels to throw out laws.

Let's see, the supressed MP5. At least the following would need to be established:

0. The 2A is incorporated and applies in California.

1. The 2A applies to weapons like an MP5. The Heller case is only over a common pistol.

2. 922(o) is invalid.

3. The BATF must accept the tax payment and process the apps and can't sit on them for a decade.

4. The CA DoJ must issue MG permits, or perhaps the CA DoJ permit system itself must be thrown out.

5. Even with a DoJ permit, the MP5 is probably still a CA AW, so the CA AWB would need to be thrown out or modified.

6. The large-cap mag ban would need to be thrown out unless you want an MG with only 11 rounds in it.

7. You would need to create a legal entity to own it, or it would take another suit to force a CLEO to sign off on the app or get rid of that requirement.

So... even if Heller is an absolute victory, there would still need to be 6 to 8 more lawsuits between you and that MP5. And layer on top of that that the CA state government would be consulting with lawyers to figure out ways to draft laws to hinder all of this.

AWB only applies to semiauto firearms....not fully:cool2::D

God Bless The Mauser
10-24-2007, 10:07 PM
I always wanted to get a M1928 Thompson which is my favorite gun.

Rhys898
10-24-2007, 11:18 PM
I think if Heller goes the right way the NFA and GCA could both be brought down, but those who have said it are right, it will take tens or even hundreds of cases over a decade or more to roll back all these regulations and laws.

If Miller and his lawyer had shown up for U.S. v. Miller and the federal prosecutor hadn't lied his *** off, we might not have had any of these issues.

In any case, it would be nice to be able to own select fire weapons and suppressors. I was in Vegas weekend before last and thoroughly enjoyed my trip to "The Gun Store". Gotta love full auto, with 2 and 3 round bursts the H&K MP5 even without suppressor is very controllable.

Jer

bulgron
10-25-2007, 11:30 AM
I think if Heller goes the right way the NFA and GCA could both be brought down, but those who have said it are right, it will take tens or even hundreds of cases over a decade or more to roll back all these regulations and laws.

If Miller and his lawyer had shown up for U.S. v. Miller and the federal prosecutor hadn't lied his *** off, we might not have had any of these issues.

In any case, it would be nice to be able to own select fire weapons and suppressors. I was in Vegas weekend before last and thoroughly enjoyed my trip to "The Gun Store". Gotta love full auto, with 2 and 3 round bursts the H&K MP5 even without suppressor is very controllable.

Jer

In my opinion, the real prize is liberalized open and concealed carry. I wish you all the best of luck going after the AW ban, and I'll even be willing to pony up some money and time to help with challenges against that law. But, frankly, I think it's all moot unless I can carry a weapon in public without risking jail time.

AJAX22
10-25-2007, 11:33 AM
I just wish the NFA/AW/922R etc laws would be abolished.

Its not because I really want to own all that stuff (I do but its besides the point)

I just want to be able to prototype new ideas and try them out without committing multiple felonys...

Gun technology has progressed very slowly over the last 20 years, and was only a little faster during the 20 years before that

phobos512
10-25-2007, 11:34 AM
I just want a semi auto, AR15, with a pistol grip and detachable mags. With no grey area for me to possibley be jailed. Keep your suppressors, and full auto etc..

People only worrying about the part of firearms they're concerned about is what's gotten us into trouble in the past. It's all the way, or don't bother.

Don't you remember the whole, "First they came for our whatever, but I'm not a whateverer so I didn't care, then they came for the blahbittyblah, but I'm not a blahbittyblaher so I didn't care, then they came for my favoritest thing in the world and no one would help me out so they kicked mud in my face and ran off gleefully with my rights" business? :D

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2007, 2:39 PM
I simply want a weapon current to today's technology that is commonly used by in infantryman. Last I checked, thats my Constitutional right.

cartman
10-25-2007, 2:50 PM
AWB only applies to semiauto firearms....not fully:cool2::D

But don't most full autos have selector switchs that enable it to shoot semiauto? That plus pistol grip and detach mag would make a full auto an aw by kali standards?

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 2:56 PM
well, what we are looking is a SCOTUS ruling/opinion that AII IS A PERSONAL RIGHT... if we get that, all the others should tumble like a house of cards

Calguns2000
10-25-2007, 3:46 PM
well, what we are looking is a SCOTUS ruling/opinion that AII IS A PERSONAL RIGHT... if we get that, all the others should tumble like a house of cardsAssuming the most favorable SCOTUS ruling and a subsequent state incorporation case that is successful, you are still going to see years of litigation over what constitutes "reasonable" regulation by the government...

there's nothing to stop the CA legislature from coming up with ever more novel and creative rules and regulations regarding firearms...

bulgron
10-25-2007, 4:12 PM
Assuming the most favorable SCOTUS ruling and a subsequent state incorporation case that is successful, you are still going to see years of litigation over what constitutes "reasonable" regulation by the government...

Up until now, any time an enumerated right has been incorporated, the courts have tended to go extremely liberal in their interpretation of that right. That is, they lean heavily in favor of protecting the individual from the government.

So I would expect the exact same thing to happen with the 2A, if the courts are intellectually honest.

Of course, the courts could be full of a lot of very ugly surprises on that account.

BTW, if Heller is upheld, do we really need the 2A to be incorporated here in CA? I keep asking it, but no one answers. The California State Constitution, article 3, section 1 reads:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

To me, that means that if the 2A means we have an individual right to keep and bear arms at the federal level, then we must also have it here in CA. Right? If not, why not?

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 4:17 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed... are any of those ideas infringments?

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

grammaton76
10-25-2007, 4:34 PM
Hmm, I just realized that this would also overturn the ban on tracer/incendiary ammo, as it's used by some of our troops. Such ammo is probably also the most effective thing against unmanned combat robots. Combat electronics tend to have plenty of redundancy and could probably withstand a few hits to processing nodes... but incendiary should do a nice job on the electronics. :)

Fjold
10-25-2007, 5:22 PM
The biggest difference that I can see a positive rulling on Heller making is that there would probably be a stop to new anti-gunlaws. The long term results would be an invalidating of restrictive state's anti-gunlaws.

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 5:40 PM
well it could be the fondation for incrimentaly repealing infringments of our AII rights in california

five.five-six
10-25-2007, 5:53 PM
there's nothing to stop the CA legislature from coming up with ever more novel and creative rules and regulations regarding firearms...

All in the name of protecting the children from the constitution

MedSpec65
10-25-2007, 5:55 PM
My take on this is that once the Amendment is defined as an individual right, the burden is on State and local governments to prove a citizen is a risk to the general public and deny them the use of a firearm. It seems to me this is the primary difference between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" States. Once a background check has been completed, 38 States now are REQUIRED to issue you a concealed weapons permit. It's "innocent until proven guilty" unlike California, where you have to prove your "innocence" and submit compelling reasons, including references, police reports and other unrelated and capricious requirements in some counties before some elitist bureaucrat decides you've groveled enough for your God-given right to protect yourself and your family. Even the FIRST Amendment is regulated and subverted here, among others. Sacramento has practically abolished the US Constitution thru the years, right under our noses.

phobos512
10-25-2007, 5:59 PM
Assuming the most favorable SCOTUS ruling and a subsequent state incorporation case that is successful, you are still going to see years of litigation over what constitutes "reasonable" regulation by the government... would you still want to own an AR-15 if the state of California required you to be fingerprinted and photographed, carry a gunowners ID card with you at all times (which was subject to a $XXX annual renewal fee), undergo mandatory substantive firearms training and screening psych exams, submit to having your co-workers and neighbors interviewed by police (to make sure you are mentally stable and don't show a propensity for violence), and you were only allowed to legally possess the weapon at your home and at the shooting range and you needed a special permit to transport the weapon between any two legal locations? These are the sorts of "regulations" governments have come up with when they couldn't/didn't want to completely ban firearms... Seems to me the types of regulations you're proposing would be unconstitutional in that they provide a class-based barrier to entry into the world of firearms...Same grounds as like a poll tax or something, ya know? Wouldn't any and every member of the militia need to be able to possess a firearm? bulgron 10-25-2007, 6:07 PM Even the FIRST Amendment is regulated and subverted here, among others. This is an interesting comment. Care to elaborate on how Sacramento is subverting the first amendment? bulgron 10-25-2007, 6:10 PM Keep in mind you are living in a circuit (9th) where the federal appeals courts have already ruled on the 2a in favor of the collective rights theory--read the DC circuit court's opinion in Parker/Heller and then ask yourself whether you would consider the 9th circuit's 2a ruling to be intellectually honest. I've never thought the 9th has been ruling correctly on 2A cases, but I've always thought they were consistent. Heller would throw out their core argument, and give us the ability to revisit all of their past rulings on the 2A. Question is, how would they approach a brave new world in which the 2A is now an individual right? five.five-six 10-25-2007, 7:16 PM I've never thought the 9th has been ruling correctly on 2A cases, but I've always thought they were consistent. Heller would throw out their core argument, and give us the ability to revisit all of their past rulings on the 2A. Question is, how would they approach a brave new world in which the 2A is now an individual right? exactly! Muzz 10-25-2007, 7:17 PM Question is, how would they approach a brave new world in which the 2A is now an individual right? They would find something...anything...to gum up the works, say that registration is not "infringing." Their word twisting and meaning reversals would hit new lows. It'll go way beyond "The People" doesn't really mean "The People." We will have yet to see the strangest battle of words known in legal history. They will not give up. They will twist and distort, whine and cry, moan and wail. They will not accept this (hopefully) forthcoming ruling. I'm afraid new battles on different legal and intellectual fronts, that we cannot even fathom today, are ahead. Liberty1 10-25-2007, 7:49 PM BTW, if Heller is upheld, do we really need the 2A to be incorporated here in CA? I keep asking it, but no one answers. The California State Constitution, article 3, section 1 reads: To me, that means that if the 2A means we have an individual right to keep and bear arms at the federal level, then we must also have it here in CA. Right? If not, why not? You're correct IMnsHO. Action can immediately be brought against the state and local governments using the decision language from Heller through Article 3, CA. Constitution. I'd donate heavily to the first round of litigation. I vote to take down 12031 (loaded prohibited) and 626.9 (1000' school zone - initially the areas out side school property). Open carry marches could then be used to bring about may issue LTC concealed (if licenses for CC remain constitutional), etc... bulgron 10-25-2007, 7:50 PM They would find something...anything...to gum up the works, say that registration is not "infringing." Their word twisting and meaning reversals would hit new lows. It'll go way beyond "The People" doesn't really mean "The People." We will have yet to see the strangest battle of words known in legal history. They will not give up. They will twist and distort, whine and cry, moan and wail. They will not accept this (hopefully) forthcoming ruling. I'm afraid new battles on different legal and intellectual fronts, that we cannot even fathom today, are ahead. Well, that begs the question, how do we change the politics of the 9th circuit? Is it a question of electing a bunch of pro-2A presidents until all of the old geezers with the wrong idea of the 2A pass on into history and can be replaced? But in any case, I guess I don't have as negative of a view of the 9th as some. I think there's plenty on that court who have the right idea of things. For example, read through the dissenting opinions on the court's refusal to deny an en banc hearing for Silvera v. Lockyer. (PDF (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/$file/0115098o.pdf?openelement)) I find what they say to be very heartening, indeed.

aileron
10-26-2007, 5:40 AM
would you like to own a a suppressed MP5?

ARggh!!! I wanted one of those my whole life in that config, nice easy cheap quiet shooting on a sunny sunday afternoon. With no hearing protection needed.

five.five-six
10-26-2007, 11:19 PM
well if you move out of the prk you can have one

stator
10-30-2007, 12:54 PM
Merging is either bad or good and rarely indifferent. We need to find out who's intern is handling the certs. If it is a liberal appointee's intern, then we are screwed because the intern is framing it their way.

There is an awful lot of internal politics within the court and this is where it is done. The judges must have clean hands but really are not above politics.

The chief justice routinely sends out letters to staff/interns reminding them of their obligation to be impartial. I understand that these letters are getting more "forceful".

hoffmang
10-30-2007, 2:12 PM
Post Parker/Heller there are two open items.

1. Will it be easily incorporated? We may get incorporation out of SCOTUS - or at least dicta that directs that this should not be a core issue. Also, I do agree that the California Constitutional claim is the other back door to incorporation. Further however - even the most anti-gun 9th Circuit Judges agree that if the 2A is Individual it is incorporated. Reinhardt said so in a footnote to Silviera.

2. The real question is what scrutiny is applied and to which entities. Will rational basis apply to arms while intermediate scrutiny applies to the owners? That's going to be the real question that will have to get answered in courts all around. The 9th Circuit may not be the best court to ask that question directly in.

-Gene

bulgron
10-30-2007, 4:01 PM
Will rational basis apply to arms while intermediate scrutiny applies to the owners?

OK, I read this and I read this, but I just can't seem to interpret it. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "rational basis" and "intermediate scrutiny"?

It seems to me that if two different standards of "reasonable regulation" will exist, one for arms and the other for people's actions relative to those arms, then probably the regulation for people's actions should be liberally applied ("shall issue CCW, etc") while regulation for arms should be based on the Miller test (is this arm useful to the militia?)

Under this rationale, the more useful an arm is to a military or resistance organization, the less able government should be able to regulate it. So, potentially, they can regulate black powder muskets to an extreme level, but hands-off AR-15 and full-auto AK-47s. Yes, I know this is 180 degrees away from the situation today, but that seems to be where an honest application of the Miller test would take us.

As for "reasonable regulation" on the keeping and bearing of arms, it seems that "shall not be infringed" would be directing government to stay as hands-off as is possible. I believe an honest reading of this allows US citizens to carry whatever arms they're legally able to own, wherever they want to, short of military reservations, court rooms, and other similar locations secured by state forces. However, public safety would seem to dictate that is is reasonable to make it unlawful to brandish weapons in a threatening manner unless in defense of oneself, to shoot into the air in celebration of the New Year, to fail to secure firearms in the presence of very young children, and so forth. All other regulations would appear to violate the "shall not be infringed" admonishment built into the 2A.

So that's my definition of "reasonable regulation." I'm absolutely certain that practically everyone else on the planet will completely disagree with me. Too bad they won't put me in charge of defining these laws. :D

CCWFacts
10-30-2007, 4:29 PM
OK, I read this and I read this, but I just can't seem to interpret it. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "rational basis" and "intermediate scrutiny"?

These are specific legal terms. Rational basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review) means that the government can do whatever it wants basically. Intermediate scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny) means that the government must defend its position. The higher level from that is strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). Most regulations don't stand up to strict scrutiny.

It seems to me that if two different standards of "reasonable regulation" will exist,

Three types of standards in fact.

Under this rationale, the more useful an arm is to a military or resistance organization, the less able government should be able to regulate it. So, potentially, they can regulate black powder muskets to an extreme level, but hands-off AR-15 and full-auto AK-47s. Yes, I know this is 180 degrees away from the situation today, but that seems to be where an honest application of the Miller test would take us.

If you take the 2A as being only related to militia uses, then indeed, blackpowder arms, which have no current militia use, could be outright banned, while M4s (ie, today's version of the M16) would have the most legal protection.

The DC circuit court said that the 2A is related to a broad civic purpose, which is broader than just militia use, and encompasses also sports, hunting, and other uses. Under this "broad civic purpose" idea, both blackpowder arms and M4s (and things in between) would have protection. The Parker decision didn't specify which test or class of arms, though.

By the way, the Brady Campaign position is all about "sporting use", but "sporting use" might not be protected at all if the 2A is narrowly about militia use. Ie, grandpa's hunting shotgun might have no protection, while an M4 does have protection. I personally like the "broad civic purpose" concept, because you're not going to have an effective militia if you don't have a civilian sports / target / competition / fun shooting culture also.

So that's my definition of "reasonable regulation." I'm absolutely certain that practically everyone else on the planet will completely disagree with me. Too bad they won't put me in charge of defining these laws. :D

Well, what will happen is they will presumably pick one of the three tests I listed above: reasonable basis (any regulation is fine), intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny (most regulations are thrown out).

hoffmang
10-30-2007, 6:45 PM
CCW explained it well, but I want to unpack one of my sentences.

There are two interesting issues in the Second Amendment.

1. The Right of the People to keep and bear.

2. Arms.

Historical jurisprudence has gone down the path that the more the Arms are the kind in common use in civilized warfare, the more protection they have - aka a PPK/S may have less protection that a SIG P228 or a Baretta 92FS and a double barreled shotgun may have less protection than an SBS breaching shotgun. I can see SCOTUS coming up with a sliding scale of scrutiny as you get into more protected weapons, but, to use the famous phrase, "thar be dragons" if you think about it.

Some restrictions are restrictions on the people. Things like registration, time place and manner (read CCW v. Open Carry), and skills testing are likely to have a different level of scrutiny. There aren't nearly the same dragons in this one if the court were to hold these rules to intermediate scrutiny. Felon's in possession would survive intermediate scrutiny, but the ban on any Felon's being rehabbed via the Federal process probably would not and that's a pretty fair and useful deal for example.

-Gene

Cato
10-30-2007, 6:48 PM
No, but a real Bren Gun would be nice...........
http://photos.imageevent.com/gazzavc/editingjunk/bren.gif

A G36c would be even nicer for me :)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/crewrt/g36k006.jpg

Now that's what the Founding Fathers meant with the 2A.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-30-2007, 9:22 PM
Assuming SCOTUS grants cert., what will be interesting to see, amongst others, will be if Miller is built upon or if its tossed out all together with a new interpretation.

SCOTUS does reverse itself from time to time.

bulgron
10-30-2007, 11:03 PM
These are specific legal terms. Rational basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review) means that the government can do whatever it wants basically. Intermediate scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny) means that the government must defend its position. The higher level from that is strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). Most regulations don't stand up to strict scrutiny.

Ah, thank you. As you can tell, I am not a lawyer. Indeed, I don't even play one on teevee. :D

I personally like the "broad civic purpose" concept, because you're not going to have an effective militia if you don't have a civilian sports / target / competition / fun shooting culture also.

An excellent and most rational point. Unfortunately, gun control laws are rarely, if ever, based on rational thought.

CCWFacts
10-30-2007, 11:57 PM
An excellent and most rational point. Unfortunately, gun control laws are rarely, if ever, based on rational thought.

Thank you. Well, if I were in charge, I would apply strict scrutiny to gun type regulations (bans), and intermediate scrutiny to regulations of people. That way, basically all gun bans would be thrown out, except for weapons which can cause massive destruction (artillery pieces, missiles, that kind of thing). At the same time, the government would be able to impose training requirements, BG checks, etc, as it thinks is necessary. That would be a pretty good balance, and would give states some flexibility. For example, here in CA, where most people have little familiarity with guns, training requirements make sense. In Alaska, where everyone hunts, packs, shoots, whatever from the age of 12 on up, training requirements make less sense.

I also think there should be more ability of felons to recover their rights. Someone who did something illegal but non-violent decades ago should have some reasonable process for recovering gun rights. We've all made mistakes and most non-violent mistakes should be forgivable. If Martha Stewart wanted to own a gun, I wouldn't feel endangered by that. So long as it is seasonally-appropriate and goes with the decor.

But alas, I'm not in charge.

Sleepy1988
10-31-2007, 6:42 PM
They would find something...anything...to gum up the works, say that registration is not "infringing." Their word twisting and meaning reversals would hit new lows. It'll go way beyond "The People" doesn't really mean "The People." We will have yet to see the strangest battle of words known in legal history. They will not give up. They will twist and distort, whine and cry, moan and wail. They will not accept this (hopefully) forthcoming ruling. I'm afraid new battles on different legal and intellectual fronts, that we cannot even fathom today, are ahead.

What is it with some people and guns? It's like they have a mental disorder or something, they just can't help themselves, they have to do everything possible to restrict our right to possess firearms.

five.five-six
10-31-2007, 8:45 PM
What is it with some people and guns? It's like they have a mental disorder or something, they just can't help themselves, they have to do everything possible to restrict our right to possess firearms.

here is what i have heard:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

LAK Supply
10-31-2007, 9:26 PM
Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud:
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

...... or an indication that certain people are so power hungry that any ability to resist their rule must be quashed prior to the full implementation of their statist plans.......

Scarecrow Repair
10-31-2007, 9:44 PM
What is it with some people and guns? It's like they have a mental disorder or something, they just can't help themselves, they have to do everything possible to restrict our right to possess firearms.

That's just how people work with unfamiliar territory.

Some city slicker moved to the boonies and was horrified to find her neighbor actually castrated livestock, so she sued him. Lost, of course.

Then there are country folk move to the city and still act like rubes, such as leaving keys in the ignition and car unlocked.

Look around you, watch the news, and you can see this effect all over the place. It crosses all politics, ideologies, classes, races, religions ....

There may be a RKBA in the constitution, but there's also a first amendment and law books full of limitations on speech, such as slander, libel, security classifications, copyright, trademarks, you name it, it is infringed to heck and back. Kind of makes it hard to single out the second amendment as any holier than the first.

Then throw in the mass migration to cities, where there is no practical day to day use of guns for shooting varmints and where you can't just hike down the road for a little plinking, where you have to take the time and trouble to pack up, drive ten miles to a range, pay fees, etc, and most people don't see any point in making the time for such a hobby.

So you get people who grow up unused to seeing guns all the time, except on the rare cop they encounter or soldiers on tv. It may not be logical to think that guns can actually truly effectively be banned, but it's human nature.

The real solution is more familiarity with guns. It's not necessary to require every adult to open carry, but if even 1% of the adults did, and that kept up for, say, 5 or ten years, a whole new crop of adults would have grown up seeing guns day inand day out and would no longer be afraid of them.

bulgron
10-31-2007, 10:40 PM
There may be a RKBA in the constitution, but there's also a first amendment and law books full of limitations on speech, such as slander, libel, security classifications, copyright, trademarks, you name it, it is infringed to heck and back. Kind of makes it hard to single out the second amendment as any holier than the first.

Yeah, but the first amendment doesn't include the admonishment, "shall not be infringed." And that is why the government should be even more hands-off on guns than they are on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-01-2007, 1:22 AM
Yeah, but the first amendment doesn't include the admonishment, "shall not be infringed." And that is why the government should be even more hands-off on guns than they are on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Another interesting contrast between the 1st and 2nd Amendments is with the 1st, it includes the language that "Congress Shall make no law".

With the 2nd there is the language "shall not be infringed", but no wording on who shall not infringe. This lack of identifying language means that NOBODY shall infringe on the right to bear arms.

Scarecrow Repair
11-01-2007, 12:20 PM
Yeah, but the first amendment doesn't include the admonishment, "shall not be infringed." And that is why the government should be even more hands-off on guns than they are on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

That's not my point. My point is that the ordinary person cares not a white for such delicacies of legal language. In the big general picture, both are touted as absolute rights, and both are beaten up in practicality. That's what ordinary people see.

As for the difference, you say that Congress can't abridge freedom of speech, but they have zillions of laws doing just that -- security classifcations, copyright, trademarks. And if there aren't federal laws concerning slander and libel, it still doesn't give states the right to abridge freedom of speech, yet they do.

bulgron
11-01-2007, 12:39 PM
As for the difference, you say that Congress can't abridge freedom of speech, but they have zillions of laws doing just that -- security classifcations, copyright, trademarks. And if there aren't federal laws concerning slander and libel, it still doesn't give states the right to abridge freedom of speech, yet they do.

There's always a natural tension between our individual civil liberties, and society's right to not be harmed by our exercise of those liberties. This is why we have the courts -- so as to find the balance between the two.

Generally speaking, the country operates on the idea that you can exercise your rights up to the point where the exercise of those rights harms another person. So, for example, you can say what you want, but not if what you say is untrue and so materially harms someone else.

Firearms can be regulated in the same way. Even the Parker ruling notes that "reasonable regulation" of firearms is possible. I don't disagree with the court on that point. All I want is to make sure that weapons regulation truly is reasonable, and has some basis in reality -- i.e. will do some actual good.

I don't think laws that prevent me from owning small arms are reasonable. I also don't think laws that prevent me from carrying small arms for personal self-protection are reasonable. The reason why is that small arms are inanimate objects. My owning and carrying of these things cannot, all by itself, harm the people around me.

How I use them is a different issue, and is subject to reasonable regulation. Again, just my non-lawerly opinion.

So regulate how and when I can fire my weapon. That's reasonable. But just about anything else isn't.

Something tells me that we may be in violent agreement on this subject.

BTW, public perception of this issue isn't relevant. What's important is that the courts understand how all of this is supposed to work. And I think they understand this issue very well. It's just that they don't like the 2A, so they play games with it.

Shame on the courts for that.

Scarecrow Repair
11-08-2007, 10:55 PM
So, is today the big day?!?

No, still tomorrow.

Scarecrow Repair
11-08-2007, 10:59 PM
So, is today the big day?!?

Almost.

Scarecrow Repair
11-08-2007, 11:00 PM
So, is today the big day?!?

Now!

Liberty1
11-09-2007, 12:03 AM
Now!

Damn! Now I can't sleep.

Liberty1
11-09-2007, 12:04 AM
Now!

Damn! Now I can't :sleeping:.

tombinghamthegreat
11-09-2007, 12:44 AM
I can't wait. haa.. now i can't sleep.

EastBayRidge
11-09-2007, 5:40 AM
Are we there yet ? Are we there yet Are we there yet ? Are we there yet ? ;)

PanzerAce
11-09-2007, 5:52 AM
Are we there yet ? Are we there yet Are we there yet ? Are we there yet ? ;)
I will turn this forum around young man....

(are we there yet?)

Wulf
11-09-2007, 7:00 AM
And keep in mind that even if the CA judiciary is intellectually honest, there's nothing to stop the CA legislature from coming up with ever more novel and creative rules and regulations regarding firearms...

Good point. What we really need is a constitutional ruling on what constitutes tyranny and when and how it can be resisted. In a way its kind of amazing that in 225 years we've never really hashed out the rules of engagement for the 2nd Amendment. Somewhere between the harassment of a petty agent of the state that costs you a night in jail and a few thousand dollars of lawyer fees and the absolute tyranny of a socialist state, there's a line. But no one every talks about where that is.

tgriffin
11-09-2007, 7:08 AM
:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5: