pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
For those of you fighting gun grabbers on other message boards - POST THIS
#1
exclamation 
Here's a Cornell synopsis of DC vs. Heller. You can just cut and paste this and bold portions where you're arguing with gun grabbers.

Nothing says "IN YOUR FACE" like showing them SCOTUS text.


Please... on newspaper comments sections, Facebook, wherever it is that you are arguing with gun-grabbers... just keep reposting this text OVER and OVER and OVER until these fuckers GET IT. The Cornell synopsis of the Heller majority opinion is reduced to about as small as you can make it while still explaining the whole majority opinion plus it also sideswipes most gun grabbers prayers for gun bans.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Quote:SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290.Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Reply
#2
You're missing the point...they want the Constitution changed to limit gun ownership.

That is their goal.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#3
Camper;62582 Wrote:You're missing the point...they want the Constitution changed to limit gun ownership.

That is their goal.

That requires 38 state legislatures--not happening.
Reply
#4
ArcticSplash;62584 Wrote:
Camper;62582 Wrote:You're missing the point...they want the Constitution changed to limit gun ownership.

That is their goal.

That requires 38 state legislatures--not happening.

I agree, but the point being that using the constitution to reason with them will get nowhere but them to say "well, then maybe we need to change the constitution."

It's the liberal tactic of wanting to change the rules, if the rules say they can't play the way they want.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#5
Camper;62591 Wrote:
ArcticSplash;62584 Wrote:That requires 38 state legislatures--not happening.

I agree, but the point being that using the constitution to reason with them will get nowhere but them to say "well, then maybe we need to change the constitution."

It's the liberal tactic of wanting to change the rules, if the rules say they can't play the way they want.

For an issue that pretty much splits even-opinion down the country, similar to abortion... it will be a grand exercise in futility similar to efforts to chip at Roe vs. Wade.

Don't get me wrong---still have to keep fighting these people, but given how pervasive gun ownership is in America and it's not a declining population either, and it has broad appeal among different races, sexes and age groups... gun grabbers have a very difficult road ahead of them and we should continue to throw them detours as much as possible.
Reply
#6
Camper;62591 Wrote:
ArcticSplash;62584 Wrote:That requires 38 state legislatures--not happening.

I agree, but the point being that using the constitution to reason with them will get nowhere but them to say "well, then maybe we need to change the constitution."

It's the liberal tactic of wanting to change the rules, if the rules say they can't play the way they want.

I would welcome a constitutional convention revolving around the 2nd amendment. WE'd have nationwide carry and no AWB and we'd have a much clear set of rules. That might mean no drinking or drugs while armed and no bar carry or school zone carry but hey, I'll take that in a clear second amendment... Of course I see it as clear now but SCOTUS doesn't and didn't in heller.
Reply
#7
I don't recall Heller doing shit other than banning outright bans of all guns, such as DC and Chicago had. They can still regulate what guns are owned and how easily they can be obtained.

They can still require registration, mag limits, etc, etc, etc.

Heller had no teeth for the rest of us.
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#8
+1 GC


Of every one hundred men in battle, ten should not even be there. Eighty, are nothing but targets. Nine are the real fighters, we are lucky to have them since they make the battle. Ah, but the one—one is the Warrior—and he brings the others home. —Heracletus
5711-Marine, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#9
God's Country;62620 Wrote:I don't recall Heller doing shit other than banning outright bans of all guns, such as DC and Chicago had. They can still regulate what guns are owned and how easily they can be obtained.

They can still require registration, mag limits, etc, etc, etc.

Heller had no teeth for the rest of us.

Not true. The majority opinion did specifically spell out what guided the court's decision, and conventional weapons freely and commonly available are limited in how the government can regulate them. Very popular items like handguns, shotguns, pistols, rifles and what will probably soon-to-be-argued... semi-auto rifles, all commercially available right now and in the hands of the public--will have to match up with the majority opinion in Heller.

This decision came AFTER the AWB expired. It will be interesting to see how a Feinstein reincarnation can match up with Heller when it goes to Federal appeals. If we're talking AR-15s and their knock-offs for instance---a lot of Americans now own them [and thanks to the panic buying, asstons more are now owners].


The best thing for us is a "turn in your guns" kind of measure that makes the courts reach for total nullification, citing Heller.

Remember, Heller said gun locks are anti-2A because the purpose of the firearm when kept in the home for self defense is that it be immediately retrievable, and erecting impediments, like requiring gun disassembly, locks, etc. doesn't jive with the Court-affirmed right of self-defense.


You are reading Heller as if it gave you nothing. Dude, the Heller case gave you everything. It put up a HUGE legal roadblock against cities that want to do what DC did and create a circus of laws that create virtual total gun bans [DC banned gun registration and then mandated gun registrations at the same time to create their total ban].

There's a lot of road to cover. It's not just that AWBs gotta pass Congress, but the money we gave to NRA/GOA has to pour into the courts to have the ban scrutinized under Heller.

Courts don't really follow public opinion all that well even though they're aware of it. Columbine was brought up and considered during the Heller case, etc.



Demolibs think they'll score a win when they push for this ban... but they can't actually put shit on the scoreboard until the law's been battle-tested in the courtrooms.

Remember, public opinion before Heller was that the Supremes wouldn't even grant certiorari on Heller because historically the court hadn't dealt that much with the 2nd Amendment. It not only took a 2A, but it also completely defined what the 2nd Amendment right is all about in modern terms and threw out most Demolibs' arguments--especially the biggest one from ages ago: the Second Amendment only applied to colonialists and to those ancient militias and they're all gone now so that Amendment is now entirely moot.

Wrong.
Reply
#10
I think this is also important from Scalia's opinion;

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Renov. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllov. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

So not only can we demonstrate an individual right, but we can demonstrate the stupidity of the "founders meant muskets" argument.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I want this guy in charge of fighting terrorists. das 11 1,526 01-18-2015, 11:51 PM
Last Post: DeadEye
  President Obama tweaks 'you can keep your plan' message das 10 1,078 11-06-2013, 07:44 AM
Last Post: kadar
  Just in: A Message from Our President, via eMail Cherokee60 3 695 10-27-2012, 11:08 PM
Last Post: Cherokee60
  One Powerful Message Karl/PA 10 1,261 10-26-2012, 07:37 PM
Last Post: andrewjs18
  Iran Says Obama Sent Secret Message Through Envoy Recognizing Their Nuclear Rights middlefinger 0 421 10-21-2012, 04:35 PM
Last Post: middlefinger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.