RKBA - The DC Case and EBRs and BFGs

[In_God_We_Trust]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Handguns, "Evil Black Rifles", and Big F*CKING GUNS (.50 BMG)

If SCOTUS rules in favor for an individual right to bear arms, are laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban in California and Massachusetts as well as the .50 cal ban in California changeable?

The real question is: Why has someone not tried to challenge those laws as unconstitutional?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The answer to the second question is usually money and time to fight a corrupt government in their own arena.

Our forefathers used bullets and cannons to secure their rights. The real questions are, how and why were those rights ever diminished and changed to being granted the "permission" of an over bearing government to exercise those rights?

I believe that at some point in time, people will have to resort to the example of our forefathers.

 

[MarkM]

If SCOTUS rules in favor of an individual right and against DC they will hopefully be saying "it is nor a reasonable restriction to the second amendment to ban a complete type/category of firearm".

If that is the case it will be easier to challenge the constitutionality of any law or Presidential ruling that bans the purchase of a type of firearm:

You could challenge the total bans such as in CA and the importation bans, as well as time based bans such MA "assault weapon" laws and the ban on post-1986 automatic weapons.

It would be more difficult to challenge things such as the $200 tax stamp or magazine round restrictions.

If the SCOTUS rules favorably I expect to see a lot of proposed state and/or Federal legislation that requires tax stamps for handguns, .50 BMG, "assault weapons", high-capacity magazines etc.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

If the SCOTUS rules favorably I expect to see a lot of proposed state and/or Federal legislation that requires tax stamps for handguns, .50 BMG, "assault weapons", high-capacity magazines etc.

That is a very good point that I had not thought of...
As a matter of fact, that really seems plausible ...

I had not thought about that, but, if you can regulate 'em, then tax 'em... VERY plausible.

The sad point is that, with all of the laws in place, it will take TIME to erase the wrongs...years before we would see any meaningful change IMHO.
Sadly, once you give up freedoms, it takes a while to get them back, and that is usually never overnight...

 

[Cabinetman]

If SCOTUS interprets the 2nd amendment properly (which I'm pretty confident of), then that will produce a platform for many other similar lawsuits across the country in states that somehow restrict the 2nd.

Consider the 1st amendment. Other than yelling "fire" in an auditorium, there are virtually no restrictions on "free speech" short of sedition. Sure, stupid statements or outright lies are subject to civil libel suits, but the constitution can't stop you from saying them in public. If the 1st amendment had been massaged like the 2nd has in a lot of states, you would hardly recognize it.

In addition, the ACLU considers their interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be 'settled law' meaning they don't support our individual rights when it comes to firearms. SCOTUS will force them to support our rights should they be infringed if SCOTUS finds in our favor.

It will take a few years, but if SCOTUS does finally, once and for all, clarify and verify our individual rights to keep and bear arms, their will be a ground-swell of individuals who will challenge the moronic, conflicting, vague, and arbitrary "laws" that require us to jump through so many hoops.

All we can do at this point is thank God that President Bush has had the opportunity to install solid judges on the court. This will be an interesting case to follow for sure!

Rome

 

[LoginName]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Handguns, "Evil Black Rifles", and Big F*CKING GUNS (.50 BMG)

If SCOTUS rules in favor for an individual right to bear arms, are laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban in California and Massachusetts as well as the .50 cal ban in California changeable?

The real question is: Why has someone not tried to challenge those laws as unconstitutional?

They have been challenged more than once, the most prominent case being
Silveira v. Lockyer.

One of the problems with arguing that "assault rifles", .50 BMG rifles and machine guns are allowed under the 2nd amendment is that they have such a negative image (even more so than handguns).

Using them as examples is not the best way to launch a 2nd amendment case. The same idea applies to using defendants with criminal backgrounds, or cases where there was criminal activity associated with a particular firearm. The less controversy and/or associated baggage involved with a case, the better.

(One of the best moves by the Parker/Heller attorneys was using plaintiffs that had no criminal history or crime involved... these were just ordinary, everyday people seeking to exercise their Constitutional rights).

Another problem with attempting to use the above firearms to argue a successful 2nd amendment case is that they're more often than not associated with the type of firearms a militia would use.

Personally, I'd rather see a 2nd amendment defense based strictly on an individuals right to keep and bear arms, rather than stating
an individual has a right to keep and bear arms because they're part of a "well regulated militia".

 

[second]

They have been challenged more than once, the most prominent case being
Silveira v. Lockyer.

One of the problems with arguing that "assault rifles", .50 BMG rifles and machine guns are allowed under the 2nd amendment is that they have such a negative image (even more so than handguns).

Using them as examples is not the best way to launch a 2nd amendment case. The same idea applies to using defendants with criminal backgrounds, or cases where there was criminal activity associated with a particular firearm. The less controversy and/or associated baggage involved with a case, the better.

(One of the best moves by the Parker/Heller attorneys was using plaintiffs that had no criminal history or crime involved... these were just ordinary, everyday people seeking to exercise their Constitutional rights).

Another problem with attempting to use the above firearms to argue a successful 2nd amendment case is that they're more often than not associated with the type of firearms a militia would use.

Personally, I'd rather see a 2nd amendment defense based strictly on an individuals right to keep and bear arms, rather than stating
an individual has a right to keep and bear arms because they're part of a "well regulated militia".

Thanks for the link, I couldnt read the whole thing, the opinion made me throw up in my mouth. These judges should be cleaning toilets instead of passing opinion on the constitution.

 

[LoginName]

Thanks for the link, I couldnt read the whole thing, the opinion made me throw up in my mouth. These judges should be cleaning toilets instead of passing opinion on the constitution.

To their credit, the court saw fit to get at least one part right...

We find, however, no rational basis for the establishment of a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers, and hold that the retired officers' exception fails even the most deferential level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[drgrant]

If the SCOTUS rules favorably I expect to see a lot of proposed state and/or Federal legislation that requires tax stamps for handguns, .50 BMG, "assault weapons", high-capacity magazines etc.

Well, IMO it would depend on how "reasonable regulation" gets
hashed out, either by the supremes or otherwise. I doubt
anyone looking at constitutionality from a legal aspect would
consider existing federal gun law wallhacks (eg, the NFA system,
which is basically a ponzi scheme which disguises gun laws as a
"tax") to be "reasonable regulation" in the sense that said regulation
applies to other rights. EG, the common "exceptions" to
constitutional rights are supposed to be few and far between, not
numerous and expansive. While I realize that a lot of the other
amendments have been hashed out pretty heavily in courts, etc,
when you start looking at them most of them have not been
crippled so badly that the intent/spirit of the amendment is lost in
the process. If we applied that logic to the 2nd amendment, then
the majority the gun regs that are out there, would most certainly
not be considered "reasonable" by constitutional standards. EG,
for example, a law saying you can't fire guns into the air in a
city might pass muster as "reasonable" as such a law doesn't
really infringe on someone's constitutional rights, but a law which
explicitly bans a certain type of common firearm (like a handgun or
rifle) would most definitely be NOT "reasonable" .

-Mike

 

[RKG]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Handguns, "Evil Black Rifles", and Big F*CKING GUNS (.50 BMG)

If SCOTUS rules in favor for an individual right to bear arms, are laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban in California and Massachusetts as well as the .50 cal ban in California changeable?

The real question is: Why has someone not tried to challenge those laws as unconstitutional?

Interpreting your question to be: would affirmance by the Supreme Court of the holding in Parker v. District of Columbia by itself invalidate the items you have identified, the easy answer is, "No." In order for the 2d Amendment to invalidate those things, you need affirmance of Parker plus a number of other rulings, none of which are open for decision in that case.

 

[Nickle]

Consider the 1st amendment. Other than yelling "fire" in an auditorium, there are virtually no restrictions on "free speech" short of sedition.

There is a restriction on the ONE form of speech the 1A was actually put in place to protect.

POLITICAL Free Speech is very restricted. You can't make a comment in the what, 60 days prior to an election, and you call THAT free speech?

 

[dbhn]

Yelling "fire" is not a restriction on the 1st amendment. It is perfectly legal and you can do it. It is the resulting consequences that you may be accountable for. Just like owning a gun. Do no harm with it and all is good.