Downside to Heller


newarcher

New member
The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?

New
 

ricardo900

New member
You are spot on newarcher, I would expect that DC & Illinois follow the example of NYC by making gun ownership time consuming and very problematic, making the would be gun owner jump thru many hoops just to possess one and probably not to carry. If the Supremes would have voted the other way, it would've allowed anti-gun cities like NYC & Chicago to ban all handguns.

I bet Bloomberg sent his team down there already.
 
Last edited:

Red Hat

New member
In an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA on FOX he said that the NRA was filing lawsuits as he spoke against Chicago, San Francisco and anywhere that our rights are being denied. Go NRA!
 

HK4U

New member
In an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA on FOX he said that the NRA was filing lawsuits as he spoke against Chicago, San Francisco and anywhere that our rights are being denied. Go NRA!


Good. I bet Bloomberg, Daley and their ilk are fit to be tied.
 

newarcher

New member
Wow, either:

a) I am just darned smart--and good looking too!

b) I have ESP

or

c) The liberals are that predictable


Link Removed

New
 

Palmach

New member
The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?

New


Unfortunately, the downside from Heller was actually caused by their own legal team. In the opinion given by the court they made it clear that Heller was not disputing rhe licensing requirement imposed by D.C., but the ban on his right to own and carry an operational handgun in his own home for personal defense.
 
[SIC]

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property...?[/SIC]

Thoughts?

New


Now we need the citizens serving on the Jury of a castle shooting case to do their part to uphold the right of a home and property owner to defend themself .....
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?
Those will be issues for future cases, but this was a necessary step to make way for those others. Basically this "incorporates" the 2nd Amendment - ie, says that it does actually apply to the states, and not just at a federal level. The 2nd Amendment is the last amendment of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states.

I'd like concealed carry and other rights to be extremely permissive and universal across the country - but honestly, because of the massive regional disagreements, things will probably never be THAT good. However, if McCain gets elected and can appoint good justices, it might be realistic to believe that licensed concealed carry could eventually be available in Chicago and San Francisco.

You can bet they'll make people fill out a ream of paperwork and jump through some hoops, but carry is carry.
 
For sure, it is very true that those cities will make it just as hard or harder than NYC to defend and carry. However, at least there is the slightest possibility now. Its a step in the right direction, and probably the best compromise they could have done given the heated debate. It draws a line in the sand, do not pass go do not collect 200. You cannot ban guns and guns are an individual right!!!
 

Sheldon

New member
Let us not forget that we squeaked by with a 5/4 decision, and that could change in the next election cycle. That and 4 of the justice's voted opinion and not law nothing new in that announcement.
 

hpj3

New member
One of the most important parts of the decision has gone almost un-noticed by most. In fact, many have stated that the issue of scrutiny was not addressed. However, it was - and in a most creative way:

Many current gun-control laws are likely to pass constitutional muster under the Heller doctrines, though further challenges to specific laws are likely. Roger Pilon, vice president for constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointed out to us that Justice Scalia's opinion included the stipulation that, in such cases, courts should not apply "rational basis," the lowest level of scrutiny, to such laws, since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, requiring strict scrutiny when a legislative body seeks to limit it.

"The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).

This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed."

Despite the critics, it appears that we have gained much more than many realize.

Howard
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,436
Messages
623,658
Members
74,274
Latest member
Jlynn610
Top