TexasCHLforum.com

DParker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

What?! The Brady Campaign issuing a statement that is not consistent with the facts?!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

Unfortunately, there is some truth in their press release:

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

Their hyperbole and prejudicial terminology is whacky, but the truth is, the ruling is far from an absolute RKBA celebration.

I couldn't agree more, KB. Here is an arguably fair, while brief, summary of Heller in Time magazine, without all the preaching from both sides. I was particularly struck by the quote from Professor Barnett, to paraphrase, "It's about gun bans, not gun control." Short and sweet. I have followed this thread with the greatest of interest, noting the shift from the early shouting and patting one's self on the back to what is now a general understanding that there remains so much to be done, in both judicial and legislative forums. Aided so much by commentators here on this forum like you, the reality check seems to have sunk in, which means that we can knowledgeably approach all that remains to be done.

Jim

KBCraig wrote:but the truth is, the ruling is far from an absolute RKBA celebration.

I think Steve said it best:

srothstein wrote:My conclusion is that this is this first step in a long journey. It is not the baby step it could have been, nor is it the giant step we wanted it to be.

In a comment on another blog, I quoted Steve and added:

The big question that has underpinned all gun control/victim disarmament debate has now been answered, and it was answered in Holding #1 on Page #1. THAT’s what we’re all so excited about. With that issue settled once and for all, the future will hopefully be a fertile ground for continuing the steady erosion of gun control that’s been happening since Florida started both the concealed carry wave and the Castle doctrine wave.

stevie_d_64 wrote:It was said that Heller WILL receive his "licence" to carry IN his home from D.C. officials...When and how that will happen is anyone's guess...It will be a very public display with all sorts of view and opinions by the usual yammer-heads...(just my opinion)...

And when all the hype dies down...What about the rest of those people who live in that district try to get their own permits and licences...I'm sure that we will not see a lot of those issued...

And the time frame for those lucky enough to get approved will probably make our current 'Waiting Room' look like the Express Lane.

KC5AV wrote:And the time frame for those lucky enough to get approved will probably make our current 'Waiting Room' look like the Express Lane.

I think we'll have to wait and see what the future holds on that score. Scalia did very specifically say in that section re: license/registration for ownership is that the City could not apply the requirement arbitrarily or capriciously. It might take a few people who don't want to wait X months for the City to tell them they can own a handgun to take it to court but I doubt a lower court would let it get very high before they referenced Heller and said to the City, "You're doing it arbitrarily and capriciously, just let them have their guns."

'Course, I could be overly optimistic on that count.

gmckinl wrote:Posted in one of the many Heller threads...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj2L8OhR4ak

Mayor Fenty addressing the SCOTUS ruling today. This is clip running for 5:12. Note a couple of statements he makes...

+ most semi-automatic handguns generally remain illegal (2:45)
+ the police will make clear what handguns specifically may be registered (4:38)

What a piece of work...

I wish the decision had been clearer when it stated semi-automatics. Looking at the few references that I could find, they referred to semi-automatic versions of assault weapons, machine pistols and the like. I didn't find them all but I didn't come across any that said semi-automatic handgun. Though I sure somewhere in there there's probably one.

aardwolf wrote:

DParker wrote:My answer to you should have made it quite clear that I most certainly did know the conditions you meant, and that you were making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Maybe it should but it wasn't clear at all. As I have said before, the Texas constitution says "arms" not firearms. Humans have used knives as weapons for thousands of years before firearms were invented, so knives are clearly arms. Please explain how the current San Antonio prohibition against one type of arm (locking folder) is fundamentally different than a hypothetical Dallas prohibition against another type of arm (long guns) other than type of "arms" prohibited (and the fact one is hypothetical. )

LGC §229.001. wrote: FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.

Then there are a few exceptions listed. Notice the pre-emption is for firearms, not knives. Municipalities can regulate knives all they want, but not firearms. San Antonio can make you apply for a license to purchase a steak knife or a butter knife, but not a pistol. Is that clear enough for every one?

Here's my overall feeling: the holding was correct, but all the dicta leading up to the holding constitute the weakest possible correct ruling.

I believe Scalia had to insert lots of weasel language to bring Kennedy (certainly) and Roberts (possibly) on board for a single 5-vote ruling.

This case reveals the lunacy of reliance on stare decisis. In a true case of first impression, like this one, there are no prior rulings to compare and weigh. Without guidance, the Court wandered timidly out of its comfort zone and blinked at the blinding light glaring off a Constitution unfiltered by judicial opinion; they hovered near the the mouth of the cave, eager to dart back inside at the first hint of danger or controversy.

Subsequent rulings won't have to suffer such anxiety: they won't have to rule "This is what the Constitution says," they can just say "This is what previous Courts have ruled."

Stare decisis has its place in statutory and tort law, where it can be relied on to assure equal treatment before the law. In constitutional law, it is ridiculous: the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

KBCraig wrote:Here's my overall feeling: the holding was correct, but all the dicta leading up to the holding constitute the weakest possible correct ruling.

I believe Scalia had to insert lots of weasel language to bring Kennedy (certainly) and Roberts (possibly) on board for a single 5-vote ruling.

This case reveals the lunacy of reliance on stare decisis. In a true case of first impression, like this one, there are no prior rulings to compare and weigh. Without guidance, the Court wandered timidly out of its comfort zone and blinked at the blinding light glaring off a Constitution unfiltered by judicial opinion; they hovered near the the mouth of the cave, eager to dart back inside at the first hint of danger or controversy.

Subsequent rulings won't have to suffer such anxiety: they won't have to rule "This is what the Constitution says," they can just say "This is what previous Courts have ruled."

Stare decisis has its place in statutory and tort law, where it can be relied on to assure equal treatment before the law. In constitutional law, it is ridiculous: the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

I believe you (KBCraig) are pretty much correct in the above but without sharing your lament (re: lunacy) on stare decisis since next time we can expect that as you say, they can get on with the law and ignore the given that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Once we reach this point, everyone will be able to argue, and hopefully they will take another step out of the cave, that as an individual right it must be treated approximately the same as other enumerated and essential rights that are both explicitly protected and long standing even prior to the Constitution.

At that point we need to demand (something like) strict scrutiny, whether they call it this or not.

Now that would be a win, the win we all hope to achieve, but for now, this was a great first step.

It is not quite a "ratchet" though, even though it is close to one. They CAN go back into the cave or just stay chained by fear around the entrance.

Our goal is get them on the outside and then to brick up that cave so that no future Court can ever retreat again.

About the only thing that could have conceivably (given reality) been better would have been for it to be 9-0. It really should have been but weakening further was likely not worth the danger and thus Scalia likely made the best choices available to him.

KBCraig wrote:...the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

Amen.

KBCraig wrote:...the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

I find it interesting, if not amusing, KB, that the four most conservative justices on the "Roberts Court" will at the drop of a hat expound on the Court's proper role being to "apply the words of the law" and not to "write the law," whereas in Heller these same justices joined in adding one very significant word to the Second Amendment. "...shall not be infringed" became "...shall not be unduly infringed."

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

KBCraig wrote:...the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

I find it interesting, if not amusing, KB, that the four most conservative justices on the "Roberts Court" will at the drop of a hat expound on the Court's proper role being to "apply the words of the law" and not to "write the law," whereas in Heller these same justices joined in adding one very significant word to the Second Amendment. "...shall not be infringed" became "...shall not be unduly infringed."

Jim

Generally speaking, the four "conservatives" give me the most heartburn for their lack of ideological consistency.

They are staunch federalists, ruling the question is one of state's rights and not federal interventionism, whenever the several states are violating people's innate human rights. If the federal government wishes to swoop in and override state laws by prosecuting people for, say, medical marijuana when it's perfectly legal in that state, then they suddenly become Hamiltonians to a degree that would make the two Johns --Jay and Marshall-- proud, declaring supremacy of federal law in all matters.

I see that the NRA had their pleadings ready to go, and filed lawsuits in at least Illinois and California just yesterday. And the wait begins again. With the threshold issue being the extension of Heller to the 50 states, after that is resolved in the affirmative, which most commentators consider likely, if not a slam dunk, our wait for the judiciary to address the difficult individual issues from state to state could be extensive. We can expect stalling tactics galore. Using Mr. Heller's case as an example, he and the others initially filed their lawsuit in February of 2003. More than five years later SCOTUS issued its decision.

I guess I have time for another cup of coffee.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:I see that the NRA had their pleadings ready to go, and filed lawsuits in at least Illinois and California just yesterday. And the wait begins again. With the threshold issue being the extension of Heller to the 50 states, after that is resolved in the affirmative, which most commentators consider likely, if not a slam dunk, our wait for the judiciary to address the difficult individual issues from state to state could be extensive. We can expect stalling tactics galore. Using Mr. Heller's case as an example, he and the others initially filed their lawsuit in February of 2003. More than five years later SCOTUS issued its decision.

I guess I have time for another cup of coffee.

Jim

The upside of this is that the Brady Bunch et al, are the ones on the spot. Those areas that choose to fight the inevitable will be severely chided by their constituents for spending tax dollars on a "lost cause". Better to reform, than contest.
I can see how many of the Brady supporters would feel the same way.

I can also see how many of those attorneys that would be asked to go to bat on these causes would resign rather than waste that portion of their career.
It's not quite a stake through the heart of the whining misguided czarist wannabe leaders out there, but it's close.

There will be much more work to do for the next 5, 10, or many more years, but this was about a 'giant' a step as this case would allow.

The particular case and defendants were chosen to maximize the chance of success and minimize the issues -- to create a CLEAN 2nd Amendment case in the Federal District of Columbia. It used no "criminals" and was focused SOLELY on keeping a handgun in the home to limit complexity and extraneous issues.


I have long claimed that automatic rifles are protected. The "militia phrase" sets the context that requires AT LEAST the protection of those arms normally issued to the individual infrantryman or the (paramilitary) police officer.

It's right there in the opinion too:

Majority Opinion DC v Heller, page 8:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. 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.

All bearable arms.


All bearable arms.

I think that Justice Scalia might have just SLIPPED that by. There is no quibble there. That is without qualification.