DCguncase

[txgho1911]

Check out
dcguncase.com
for the latest current info on the USSC appeal and other actions. The other areas of this site are very informative. Warning it can be very dry reading.

I tried to read DC's petition. I could not complete this. I had to instead skim searching for relevancies. The side note that bastardized DC's position on functional rifles and shot guns just blew my mind.
I must agree this could sabotage. More it was written without organization and as Heller's motion to drop the stay on the long arm ban ruling points out. Did not address every point in the circuit courts ruling. In total DC's petition is disgustingly insulting to my sense of reality and surely the SCOTUS's deserved respect. SCOTUS should hear the case just to correct DC's manners in this.

Turn the page and read the counter petition and dread of long dry reading disappears and is replaced with anticipating excitement. I found a note warning of Heller's new motion to the DC Court of Appeals. And I cannot describe how much easier reading this material has been.

DC got spanked with the ban overturned.
DC lied to get the order held for 90 and again for 30 more days.
They tripped all over the place to make an appeal and jinx it.
The mistakes they made in the petition are back haunting them in the counter appeal.
Mistakes and attitude are biting them on the tail in every way they cannot expect.
Hoping for a positive ruling by next summer.

 

[raybsc]

DC Guncase

Been following this since it started.
Mostly boring reading for sure, but the outcome, if the SCOTUS hears it and makes a decision will impact all gun owners in some fashion.
The bad part is that there is no way to tell which way this will go.
What seems normal and logical to you and I, somehow does not to SCOTUS.
Thanks for posting this as every gun owner needs to watch this.

 

[DrDavidM]

What part of the right to keep and bear arms to people not understand. Oh wait, they do understand. They just don't care.

 

[ishi]

People didn't care when Habeus Corpus was scrubbed last year either. They still don't. Who am I supposed to vote for when all politicians want to take away my rights, they just can't agree on which to ditch first?

What part of the right to keep and bear arms to people not understand. Oh wait, they do understand. They just don't care.

 

[Bohemian]

D.C. Gun Ban

The key thing to note is that this case could once and all settle the personal right to keep and bear arms issue and potentially roll back every weapon ban ever issued...
As the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a clear and concise ruling as to whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms....
Its sad that their clarification is needed, when it is so obvious that is does...

It is imperative to note...
The liberal left seems to be deliberately underreporting this
potential precedent setting issue that may soon be heard in the U.S.
Supreme Court...

I would like to know what each and every 2008 Presidential Candidates
position is on the D.C. Gun Ban that may be heard by the supreme
court...

I think this is a pivotal issue that every candidate must clearly and
concisely state their position on.

Moreover, we must hammer the media and the canidates to do so...

I am a USMC veteran, a member of the NRA and I vote on everything put to the people nationally and locally, including but not limited to the Presidential Primaries...

If we do nothing we will only be able to say that we did nothing.

Write your representatives in Washington:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

Write the Media:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/

Write GOA - the Gun Owners of America:
http://www.gunowners.org/

Write the Second Amendment Foundation:
http://saf.org/

Write the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action:
http://www.nraila.org/

Write the NRA News:
Link Removed

Read The Unabridged Second Amendment:
Link Removed

Semper Fidelis

 

[BluesStringer]

The key thing to note is that this case could once and all settle the personal right to keep and bear arms issue and potentially roll back every weapon ban ever issued...
As the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a clear and concise ruling as to whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms....
Its sad that their clarification is needed, when it is so obvious that is does...

Most anti-gunners that really know a thing about the right being collective vs. individual rely on United States V. Miller in 1939, a case about a sawed-off shotgun as it related to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA, as most of us know, made full-auto weapons and sawed-off shotguns all but illegal for private citizens to own. Not surprisingly, Miller ignored the Act in pursuing his career as a bank robber. When captured, he managed to get all the bank robbery charges against him dropped by turning state's evidence on his cohorts. But the gun charge stuck, and so a hapless criminal who should've been put away for real crimes, became the first, and really, the only significant, test case for the NFA of 1934.

You are absolutely right that the case in question here in this thread has the potential to settle the collective vs. individual right once and for all, Bohemian. This is not intended as a challenge to that premise. What I would like to emphasize however, is that Miller is a very weak case for gun-grabbers to hang their hat on in claiming that it supports the collective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Here's the crux of Justice McReynolds' majority opinion:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

It's a long, rambling decision, but that's the bottom line, McReynolds counted on the reference to the militia within the Second to uphold the NFA ban on sawed-off shotguns. But that's all it did was decide the very narrow issue of one type of weapon, a shotgun, and nowhere in the decision do the words anything to the following effect appear, "The 2nd Amendment does not apply to individual ownership, it is a collective right."

So though it's accurate to say that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a clear and concise ruling as to whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms....", all of the law, the Federalist Papers and speeches in the Halls of Congress prior to Miller still stand as controlling the issue. It is unquestionably an individual right according to anything and everything that one can find chronicling the Framers' intent on the issue. Any SCOTUS decision that goes contrary to that premise is, in and of itself, unconstitutional, and we as 2nd Amendment supporters should not budge an inch from that position, and, as well, should demand of our government representatives that they adopt it just as vehemently as we, and our Founding Fathers, have.

Blues

 

[Bohemian]

The Miller decision also did not consider or they were not made aware that U.S. soldiers in WWI carried sawed-off shotguns...

Getting Parker or Heller heard by the supreme court is pivotal because Miller is so convoluted and often mis-cited by liberals, judges etc.

SAF Files Amici Curiae Brief in Lawsuit; DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional:
http://saf.org/