Best Source for DC vs. Heller Updates and links

Status
Not open for further replies.

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,368
Likes
1,461
Location
NH
If things contiue down this path... my hope is that goal will have a way to to kick out the EOP and AG lists and the AW ban in MA.

That may be a long shot (pun intended) but I/we can hope.
If in later cases, the 2nd A is held applicable to the states (likely), and the standard of review is intermediate, the approach would in theory be to examine the actual implementation of the law and see whether it is in fact arbitrary and capricious in practice. If strict scrutiny becomes the level of review warranted, I agree that the EOP and may issue license schemes may be subject to facial challenge as simply being not the most effective and least intrusive approach to the government's stated goal(s) of [reducing violent crime ; reducing firearms violence ; public safety ; etc.]. Not sure how the AWBs will fare even under strict scrutiny.

It is going to become - as it should have been since at least the 14th Amendment - an entire realm of constitutional legal scholarship the way freedom of speech is. I think there's a lot of years yet to go for the courts just to figure out the basics.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
agreed.

however, if the SCOTUS does in fact rule that 1 - it is an individual right and; 2 - banning of specific firearms is unconstitutional;

then that in a sense makes near every law on the books in Ma unconstitutional. Now, each law would still need to be challenged obviously. But it would be rather arrogant and ignorant of the state to go against the SCOTUS... not that they wouldnt try though.
 

NFD9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
916
Likes
68
Location
MA
Not to rain on the parade, but I am not too optimistic. I don't think it will be ruled much in our favor, if any. When listening to the briefs, I got the impression that too many of the justices are in acceptance of "reasonable restrictions", which is the sh*t bag of laws we are forced to carry around here in MA. I hope and pray I am wrong![crying]
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,493
Location
Central Ma.
Machine Guns

I did get rather pissed at everyone's seeming willingness to throw machine guns and those mythical invisible plastic guns under the bus.
**********
What pissed me off was that Gura didn`t distinguish the difference between a "Machine gun" and a fully automatic rifle. Assault style weapons that can be fired full auto are not "machine guns" technically. I wish he had made that point.
 

doobie

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
8,423
Likes
248
agreed.

however, if the SCOTUS does in fact rule that 1 - it is an individual right and; 2 - banning of specific firearms is unconstitutional;

then that in a sense makes near every law on the books in Ma unconstitutional. Now, each law would still need to be challenged obviously. But it would be rather arrogant and ignorant of the state to go against the SCOTUS... not that they wouldnt try though.
Also wouldn't stop Con-gress from trying to amend the 2A.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,348
Likes
26,203
Also wouldn't stop Con-gress from trying to amend the 2A.
Yeah but that would require a far bigger portion of votes... and if
we have 2/3rds anti gun house/senate, we're basically doomed as a
nation at that point anyways, because that means there are a lot
of hard core moonbats in those seats.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,348
Likes
26,203
I know that machine guns were not part of the case, which concerned itself with handgun ownership regulation, but I couldn't believe how open the door was to reversing the 1986 law. I fear the Heller legal team didn't prepare for this potentiality, and this is why they wimped out. If this is the case, then their gut reaction would undoubtedly be, "We don't want to look like gun fanatics, let's downplay machine guns."
I don't like the fact that he tried to downplay the legitimacy of MG's under the 2nd amendment- but I think it was Gura's veiled way of saying "I agree with you so lets shut up about the machineguns already,. that's not what I want to talk about" although there might have been a more deft way he could have approached the issue. The thing is, I doubt in the end the segue about machineguns will even come up- because the case doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with them. (Well, that is, unless legally speaking, the court delineates a list of things which are and are not protected by the 2nd, but I don't really think the ruling is going to have that kind of broadness.

I can't really bitch about that though, in the grand scheme of things... if it wasn't for Gura and Levy (and the right plaintiffs coming along) none of this would be happening... and we'd be stuck with the same old same old... instead of at least getting (potentially) a big part of the question answered, we'd be stuck with the status quo of the 2nd amendment remaining functionally impotent in legal circles... this case has the potential to change
that, at least to some degree.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
3,261
Likes
53
Location
New England
agreed.

however, if the SCOTUS does in fact rule that 1 - it is an individual right and; 2 - banning of specific firearms is unconstitutional;

then that in a sense makes near every law on the books in Ma unconstitutional. Now, each law would still need to be challenged obviously. But it would be rather arrogant and ignorant of the state to go against the SCOTUS... not that they wouldnt try though.
In the past, the Massachusetts SJC has rulled that the Massachusetts constitution was enacted earlier, and mandates a higher level of oversight. And they have gotten away with this in a number of intances regarding constituional righs regarding things like search and seizure.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
12,017
Likes
1,367
Location
Western Mass
In the past, the Massachusetts SJC has rulled that the Massachusetts constitution was enacted earlier, and mandates a higher level of oversight. And they have gotten away with this in a number of intances regarding constituional righs regarding things like search and seizure.
Don't know if this was posted earlier ... but its good reading. This is the amicus brief that was signed by Cheney, et. al., and it's a handy summary of refutations of the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
1,141
Likes
12
Location
Massachusetts :*(
I know the audio is around online, but in case you missed it

C-SPAN Weekend Alert
Programming Information for Fri. 3/21 - Mon. 3/24, 2008
**********************************************************************

C-SPAN Highlights

Saturday:
* America & The Courts: Supreme Court Oral Arguments D.C. v. Heller (7pm)
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
749
Likes
24
Location
NE MA
...I can't really bitch about that though, in the grand scheme of things... if it wasn't for Gura and Levy (and the right plaintiffs coming along) none of this would be happening....
Certainly, and if I were speaking directly with these individuals, I would have a much more congratulatory tone than I do here. They have done a good thing; bringing the 2A to the SC for the first time in decades, the first time since most of the reprehensible gun control laws hit the books. It is and will be historic one way or another. They have enabled a possible revolutionary SC ruling, that would demand the repealing of the MG laws, DC's handgun law, CA's and MA's draconian laws, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It's exciting to think about, even if exceptionally optimistic. Hell, these guys may go down in gunny history with Gene Stoner, John Browning and Sam Colt.

[grin]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
3,167
Likes
339
Location
Wherever the gipsies take me.
I was listening to some ot the oral arguments yesterday and shuddered at Walter Dillinger frame of mind. The issue of the 1A came up and one of the justices asked Walter Dillinger if maybe more than 50 books would be considered too much freedom of speech. His response was that clearly there should be no limit on the number of books a person may own but that owning 50 guns is excessive.

*SHUDDER*
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
why is that excessive? I mean i can only read one book at a time just like I can only shoot one gun (ok, 2 if im really freaking good) at a time.

so why does it matter how many i have.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
200
Likes
16
Location
Maine
What the hell is a plastic gun? I know my glock has a plastic frame and some plastic components but from what I'm looking at it isn't all plastic.
It's kinda like "genuine imitation leather." [smile]
Actually, there was a time when the anti's were going on about "UNDETECTABLE PLASTIC PISTOLS!!!" and such. Dire predictions of people sneakin' them through metal detectors, Y'know, Mitch Leary and all that stuff.
Just another undies-in-a-bunch catchphrase, like "semi-automatic assault weapons." [rolleyes]

{Back to original topic}
Compromise is a nice concept, but pretty much anything that's given up lets a little more of that damned camel into the tent. [frown]
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
11
Likes
0
Location
Metrowest
Chaos

So, if all the Massachusetts gun laws are thrown out as being unconstitutional with the "correct" outcome from Heller vs DC, any ideas on what the transition would be like here in Massachusetts? Shopping sprees for buying formerly banned "evil-looking" guns or a lock-down of all sales until the libs can re-group and try again?

Do I wait a little while so I don't have to have the bayonet lug ground off my new AR and get the accessories I really want on it?

I just hope the Commonwealth corrects things quickly so they don't blow the budget on law suits from citizens denied their constitutional rights.

Regards...
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
In the past, the Massachusetts SJC has rulled that the Massachusetts constitution was enacted earlier, and mandates a higher level of oversight. And they have gotten away with this in a number of intances regarding constituional righs regarding things like search and seizure.
They can say it, but ultimately the SCOTUS and the US Constitution come first.

As part of ratifying and becoming a member of the United States, each state agreed that the US constitution over rules any state constitution. Ie, you can not make legal in the state what is illegal in the US.

Slaver would be the biggest example/reason/proof of this.

The reason that they have "gotten away with it" is because no one has challenged it at a federal level.

the state can rule any way that they want (just as in DC) it is then up to the parties involved to take it to the next level.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,348
Likes
26,203
So, if all the Massachusetts gun laws are thrown out as being unconstitutional with the "correct" outcome from Heller vs DC, any ideas on what the transition would be like here in Massachusetts? Shopping sprees for buying formerly banned "evil-looking" guns or a lock-down of all sales until the libs can re-group and try again?
The deal is that even if SCOTUS rules correctly, absolutely nothing will happen, as this case doesn't establish incorporation, at least not directly. There would have to be at least one, and possibly more, legal slugfests to occur which would use the SCOTUS decision as a basis for a challenge- eg, for example, if DC falls then someone might try to take Chicago to task on their handgun ban, because it is an outright ban.

I highly doubt that even in a case of a slam dunk victory that the oppression we deal with in this state is going to end very soon. So if you were planning on getting the hell out of here, I wouldn't defer your plans.... [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
correct,

when the SCOTUS rules (correctly [wink]) that does not automatically mean that all the current laws are gone.

they still need to be challenged, likely one by one unfortunately.

So, this is not over in June.

Likely Mass wont see any real change until GOAL steps up and legally challenges each laws Constitutionality.

Many states have Unconstitutional laws on the books. It is still up to someone to challenge them.

But ultimately, the state cannot rule against the SCOTUS.

It is still a long road, but I am more confident now then I was a year ago in the direction that this is going to go and how it will effect this state and our rights as gun owners.
 

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,012
Likes
1,233
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
When SCOTUS rules correctly but cites Miller in that the guns must be capable of serving a military use (the militia crap thing), then suddenly the semi auto 'assault' weapons that we have and can buy now, will be deemed of the non military type as they are semi automatic, not select fire and will be banned by the anti's. Someone of them will come up with that logic. They'll try and have it both ways.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,995
Likes
417
Location
Vermont, a Free State
When SCOTUS rules correctly but cites Miller in that the guns must be capable of serving a military use (the militia crap thing), then suddenly the semi auto 'assault' weapons that we have and can buy now, will be deemed of the non military type as they are semi automatic, not select fire and will be banned by the anti's. Someone of them will come up with that logic. They'll try and have it both ways.

They'll try, but the real situation is that the Fed's are going to fight it, tooth and nail, because if it flies, they'll have to repeal NFA '34, and the MG ban portion of FOPA '86.

The Fed's were simply asking to keep the status quo of Fed laws, while getting DC to repeal their ban. I read the arguments, and I have to say, the Fed's argument was a good one, along with the Justice's comments (even Ginsberg sees the 2A as an Individual right) and DC's attorney got raked over the coals by the Justices. They did everything but come right out and call him a liar.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,348
Likes
26,203
They'll try, but the real situation is that the Fed's are going to fight it, tooth and nail, because if it flies, they'll have to repeal NFA '34, and the MG ban portion of FOPA '86.
I doubt it- IMO the 86 MG ban might get dumped but more than likely NFA will be considered a "reasonable restriction" save for maybe the CLEO signoff requirement. Remember that the reason NFA-34 passed to begin with is because it was done under the guise of a TAX and not a ban, although someone would probably have a solid case for severely reforming the NFA system so that it is less of an "infringement". (For example, there's absolutely no reason why all NFA branch transactions couldn't be done electronically, perhaps within a week processing
time, at least on stuff which is "fresh" within the NFRTR. )

The Fed's were simply asking to keep the status quo of Fed laws, while getting DC to repeal their ban. I read the arguments, and I have to say, the Fed's argument was a good one, along with the Justice's comments (even Ginsberg sees the 2A as an Individual right) and DC's attorney got raked over the coals by the Justices. They did everything but come right out and call him a liar.
Agreed. The DC guy looked like a boob. The justices appear to understand the fact that the "militia" argument, and that referencing Miller are basically red herrings to try to divert the discussion from the question at hand.

The fed guy that showed up, IMO, basically his only purpose was to say, in a veiled, roundabout manner, that "we don't want you repealing NFA-34 outright". more or less.


-Mike
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,995
Likes
417
Location
Vermont, a Free State
Yeah, my uptake on the Fed guy was to keep NFA '34 and GCA '68 in place, with the possibility of maybe even keeping the '86 MG ban, though I think they could live with that gone.

Referencing US v Miller by the DC lawyer was about the dumbest thing he said.

Miller was caught in possession of an illegally (per NFA '34) sawed off shotgun, and it's common knowledge the Fed's lawyer lied about shotguns not being military weapons. If Miller had been in possession of a BAR or 1919 series MG, he would've won, as the SCOTUS declared if Miller had been in possession of a MILITARY type weapon, he would've been good to go. US v Miller also pretty much sawa the 2A as an individual right.

It boils down to what "reasonable restriction" will be.

I see minimum age as reasonable, though I see no reason why the minimum age across the board (including handguns and MG's) shouldn't be 18, or better 16.

I see CCW permits (shall issue, though) as somewhat reasonable, though there should be a requirement for states to recognize all other states permits.

I see AWB's of any kind as unreasonable.

I see any kind of registration scheme as unreasonable.

I think that the '86 MG ban as unreasonable, and it flies in the face of Miller and the 2A.

I see banning civilian ownership of WMD (nukes, chem and bio weapons) as reasonable.

I see restricting (not banning, but registering) ownership of breech-loading artillery and large caliber (over 19mm) weapons as reasonable, with the exceptions of mortars and hand held grenade and rocket launchers (but not SAM's).
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
It boils down to what "reasonable restriction" will be.
THAT is what worries me. Because every a**h*** in the MA would consider an AWB as "reasonable". If they are to use the wording "reasonable", then they need to define what "Reasonable" is.

I see minimum age as reasonable, though I see no reason why the minimum age across the board (including handguns and MG's) shouldn't be 18, or better 16.
I agree with 18, you can vote at 18 you should sure as heck be able to carry at 18. I don't agree with 16 simply because i think that 90% of 16 year olds are morons... where as only about 30% of 18 year olds are morons. [wink] seriously though... i think un restricted possesion by a 16 year old is still a bad idea.

I see CCW permits (shall issue, though) as somewhat reasonable, though there should be a requirement for states to recognize all other states permits.
Agreed. (and this is likely because i have lived in MA all my life so I am somewhat corrupted by their stupidity) but i like the idea of the firearms safety course, but i feel it should be FREE and license fees should be a simple $10 - $15 simply for processing... $125 for a class and $100 for a lic. are simply means to deter folks from bothering.

I see AWB's of any kind as unreasonable.
Yup

I see any kind of registration scheme as unreasonable.
Agreed, this only gives ability to confiscate if they feel we (the people) are out of control.

I think that the '86 MG ban as unreasonable, and it flies in the face of Miller and the 2A.
Agreed, but can't afford one anyway so...

I see banning civilian ownership of WMD (nukes, chem and bio weapons) as reasonable.
Agreed, the 2nd was intended for infantry style weapons (can be carried/handled/operated by 1 person

I see restricting (not banning, but registering) ownership of breech-loading artillery and large caliber (over 19mm) weapons as reasonable, with the exceptions of mortars and hand held grenade and rocket launchers (but not SAM's).
refer to last comment.
 
Last edited:

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,482
Likes
7,486
Location
Near Framingham
So, if all the Massachusetts gun laws are thrown out as being unconstitutional with the "correct" outcome from Heller vs DC, any ideas on what the transition would be like here in Massachusetts?
I believe the supreme court will find that the 2nd A is an individual right, subject to some restrictions. Just how broad the ruling will be is an open question.

However, even if there is a broad ruling from the supreme court, I think there is zero chance that MA gun laws will go down without a long, hard, multi-year, multi-million dollar fight.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,995
Likes
417
Location
Vermont, a Free State
If it weren't for the 86 ban, you could.

Quite true. The '86 ban is what jacked prices sky high.

If I had been smart enough to have seen the future, I would bought all kinds of NFA '34 stuff prior to GCA '68.

Stuff like sub-machine guns, anti-tank rifles and such could be had for little more than a decent sporting rifle, and sometimes even for LESS.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,995
Likes
417
Location
Vermont, a Free State
I agree with 18, you can vote at 18 you should sure as heck be able to carry at 18. I don't agree with 16 simply because i think that 90% of 16 year olds are morons... where as only about 30% of 18 year olds are morons. [wink] seriously though... i think un restricted possesion by a 16 year old is still a bad idea.
I also am leery of 16, but it is state law in some states, like Vermont. A 16 year old can be in possession of a handgun with no supervision, and can theoretically buy a long arm (the Fed law prohibits it, though), and the age is lower for possession without supervision of a long arm. Almost all 16 year olds (and even younger), outside the immediate Burlington area can handle that responsibility, too. Of course, they've been raised in the sticks, where gun ownership is a way of life, and up here we don't have to lock our guns up.

As to the CCW bit, I should have mentioned that they should be permanent, and low cost (say, 3 times the current minimum wage), after attending a simple safety course, much like a hunter education course (which should be sufficient).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom