Heller Affirmed! (Discuss Supreme Court Decision here)

[Pilgrim]

Don't you find it odd that we lambast the press all of the time for inaccurate reporting, but we take a quote as being absolute gospel because it makes one of our own look a little tainted. Someone even put the alleged quote in large red letters, sort of like a cyber scarlet letter. Now I don't know if this quote is accurate or not. How well do you trust the Lowell Sun? How well do you trust the reporter? Maybe it is accurate or maybe it isn't. Maybe it is quoted out of context, or the question posed was such that was the best way to answer the question. There are too many variables here.

Bottom line: if you want the absolute truth, go directly to the source. Too many people get crucified by the press because they are either misquoted or taken out of context.

I don't know the person in question, I doubt if I will ever do business with him because his store is out of my orbit, but for those of you do, I find it mighty queer that you disbelieve and vilify the press until someone comes along with a quote that gets your blood boiling, but you don't really know if it is anymore the truth than the other 70 percent of the lies that lurk between the pages of our newspapers.

Perhaps it is time to step back from post-Heller euphoria and emotionalism and try to figure out how this is going to impact us here in Massachusetts, and what the ruling really means. My concern is that some of you are going to be very disappointed. Perhaps this seems bitter and negative, it is not intended to be, but we really have to see how this whole thing plays out.

Respectfully,

Mark L.

Fair enough. I modified my original post.

 

[drgrant]

Don't you find it odd that we lambast the press all of the time for inaccurate reporting, but we take a quote as being absolute gospel because it makes one of our own look a little tainted.

One thing isn't a variable, the POS in question has been a "problem" before
and the quotation attributed to him fits that mold perfectly. Apparently
you missed that thread. I wouldn't call the guy "one of our own" by any
stretch of the imagination.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

My concern is that some of you are going to be very disappointed. Perhaps this seems bitter and negative, it is not intended to be, but we really have to see how this whole thing plays out.

I don't think many will be "disappointed" more than we already are, Mark. If one is an MA resident, you will always have plenty to be disappointed about, there's really no getting around that, other than moving.

In the long run Heller might slightly reduce abuses in the MA permitting system, but I doubt it will even come close to touching the biggest problem, which is restricted licensing. (If I had to fathom a guess I would guess that there are more victoms of "red town downgrade syndrome" then there are outright denials. Denials for suitability or otherwise likely represent a drop in the bucket compared to the number of crippled licenses in MA.

A possible case later on might destroy the notional of a suitability denial, if its brought through the system. However, I doubt it would stop the chief from crippling the victim's permit on issuance, and then we're
back to the more common problem anyways.

I think full blown incorporation has to come before we can see anything else, and the battleground for that is likely going to be shitcago or one ofthe IL suburbs that bans handguns.

I'm also praying like hell that Gura and the guy who underwrote this whole thing is going to help with the incorporation effort as well, or at least be involved in the process. A similar well crafted effort must be used
for incorporation, otherwise it might get shot down in the process.

-Mike

 

[jar]

I'm also praying like hell that Gura and the guy who underwrote this whole thing is going to help with the incorporation effort as well, or at least be involved in the process. A similar well crafted effort must be used
for incorporation, otherwise it might get shot down in the process.

He is. See http://www.chicagoguncase.com/. The complaint was filed within minutes of the Heller ruling and reads very similarly to the original Parker v DC complaint. Also they've learned from the decision on standing in the DC circuit, and all of the plaintiffs have applied to register handguns in Chicago and been denied. I temper all of this good news by pointing out that it's going to take a while. The original complaint filed in the DC District Court was dated February 10, 2003.

 

[WayneWong]

The political and legal fight has just begun, but now the police chiefs and the AG are on the defense and we are on the offense. In the same way that they have been relentless, now we must be. The Gun Control Act of 1998 by it´s name, intent, and language was meant to infringe on gun ownership and use. We should leave nothing less than shreds of it. And BTW, the very premise of the last SJC decision was that of a collective right. That decision and every law that has been passed since then needs to be revisited.

I trust that Jim Wallace and GOAL will be doing an excellent job in putting our civil servants back in their place. As for me, I will be taking informed and calculated action to get the restriction taken off my license with the help of an attorney.

God protect the United States Bill of Rights.

 

[matt1956]

Amen!

And, if you get that restriction removed... i'd like the name of your attorney so I can have mine and my wife's removed as well

 

[Garys]

Don't you find it odd that we lambast the press all of the time for inaccurate reporting, but we take a quote as being absolute gospel because it makes one of our own look a little tainted.
Mark L.

Oh, you've noticed that too? I thought it was just me.

 

[Cross-X]

Wonder if this will have any impact on our Massachusetts law on trigger locks since they struck down the DC law requiring guns be locked or disasembled.

Probably not.

 

[jzrawlins]

He is. See http://www.chicagoguncase.com/. The complaint was filed within minutes of the Heller ruling and reads very similarly to the original Parker v DC complaint. Also they've learned from the decision on standing in the DC circuit, and all of the plaintiffs have applied to register handguns in Chicago and been denied. I temper all of this good news by pointing out that it's going to take a while. The original complaint filed in the DC District Court was dated February 10, 2003.

If I'm reading that Chicago case right, it's asking for the 2nd amendment to be incorporated in paragraph 48.

IANAL

 

[Gammon]

Will this affect the AG's restriction of the sale of guns not certified for use in MA?

 

[M1911]

Will this affect the AG's restriction of the sale of guns not certified for use in MA?

I doubt it. Certainly not in the near term.

 

[BigKat]

Why "over and above the legalese surrounding the second amendment"? Do the words not have meaning? Who says anyone is "Required" to carry? Are you saying that people do not have the right to protect themselves? In any society, in any age, over thousands of years, people will protect themselves with whatever they have available. Protect against what? PREDATORS. These predators may be animal....or human. Our founding fathers had to deal with both. They realized that human predators can and will be more dangerous than the animal variety. Put yourself in the timeframe. Go back to that time and envision what they lived and experienced. Do you think they had an easy time of it? Do you think they put their lives, livlehoods, families, businesses, etc. on the line for a whim? These things, I think, we are prone to forget or not comprehend. These folks literally put all on the line. What they took on would most likely never happen today...given our PC attitude, desire to be "liked, loved and admired" by the rest of the world, and a lack of faith in our own SUCCESSFUL way of doing things. Grin, can you tell I am sick and tired of people trying to tear this country down? The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with modern politics. It, in its originality, has all to do with the basic human right to defending oneself against any and all predators....in whatever form.

If you look at my post, I said I was taking the question to the extreme, and I did it to make a point, not as a commentary...about anything. Yes, I know people aren't required to carry guns.

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. When I was talking about over and above the legalese - I was saying that what I'm most interested in is seeing the tangible results of what happens given that the DC handgun ban has been struck down. In my personal opinion, crime will probably get better, I doubt it will be an incredibly dramatic improvement. At the end of the day, I personally think that this is the central issue to the modern debate about guns. Here's what I was trying to convey: set aside completely the question of whether guns are or are not, or should or should not be legal - my question is: does more guns mean less crime, does more guns mean roughly the same amount of crime, or does more guns mean more crime. Folks who are anti gun think strongly that it means more crime.

The lucky thing, I think, is that there will be much less need to speculate - now that the handgun ban is lifted we'll actually get to see what happens with crime in DC. That's the most exciting part of this whole ruling for me so far.

 

[brass spitter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammon View Post
Will this affect the AG's restriction of the sale of guns not certified for use in MA?
I doubt it. Certainly not in the near term.

I doubt it. Certainly not in the near term.

This, from thde legal blog Scotusblog, implies lines of argument that could eliminate, or at least significantly loosen, the AG's approval criteria:

From
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-discussion-board-miller-colt-45s-and-natural-law/#more-7597
Heller Discussion Board: Miller, Colt .45s and Natural Law
Friday, June 27th, 2008

"… D.C. outlaws any self-loading rifle or handgun for which there exists a magazine holding more than 12 rounds. For example, the Colt .45 handgun has been, since its invention in 1911, one of the most common American handguns. The Colt .45 comes with a standard 7-round ammunition magazine. It’s possible, if you search long enough, to buy a 15 or 20 round magazine for the Colt. Except as a novelty, these magazines have no use on a Colt .45. They make the handgun much too large to carry, and they extend so far below the grip that they make the gun awkward to handle.

"In the District of Columbia (but nowhere else in the United States), the Colt .45 is banned. Not just banned if you have a 20 round magazine for the gun, but banned even if you only have the standard 7 round magazine. Preposterously, the D.C. ordinance classifies the 7-round Colt as a “machine gun,” and outlaws civilian possession of these so-called “machine guns.”

"Heller says that there may not be bans on guns “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” This surely encompasses the Colt .45, and the thousands of other models banned by D.C.’s overbroad “machine gun” law. The D.C. ordinance prohibts over half of the handguns made in the U.S. in a typical year, and a very large fraction of rifles, including low-powered .22 caliber rifles from venerable companies like Winchester. …"

I can see new Glocks, Spriongfield XDs, etc. in Massachusetts stores someday soon! GOAL, please take note.

 

[hminsky]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=av9B36v6r6Jc&refer=home

Here's an article about DC residents, some of whom really want to get a gun now.

 

[Ray-500]

We are going to see a MASSIVE amount of spin and downplay of this from the anti's I think.

Its already started. Check out Pelosi's comments today and also those of various Mayors in todays news. Got to understand it will be a never-ending battle and they are just waiting for folks like us to slack off.

 

[M1911]

I can see new Glocks, Spriongfield XDs, etc. in Massachusetts stores someday soon! GOAL, please take note.

Soon? I think you do not understand our legal system. Heller v. DC started in 2003 and rumor has it cost $10M. Any legal challenge to MA laws in Federal court would start in our district in Boston, which is horribly liberal. The loser would appeal. The loser of the appeal would appeal to SCOTUS. We're talking years and millions of dollars. GOAL doesn't have millions of dollars.

Nothing will happen soon. That is not the way the legal system works.

 

[Blitz1]

Soon? I think you do not understand our legal system. Heller v. DC started in 2003 and rumor has it cost $10M. Any legal challenge to MA laws in Federal court would start in our district in Boston, which is horribly liberal. The loser would appeal. The loser of the appeal would appeal to SCOTUS. We're talking years and millions of dollars. GOAL doesn't have millions of dollars.

Nothing will happen soon. That is not the way the legal system works.

How about I just use my Genie? Would that help??

 

[Coyote33]

Does or does not the 2nd Amendment refer to military arms? I am still unclear on this. I thought the Miller case said it does because the sawed off shotgun "allegedly" wasn't of military use". This past week's ruling took it a step further to say it is an individual's right. So, are we allowed M16's or "just" AR15's? This could be the crux of it, no?

Check out:

Feds raid Blackwater in weapons probe

Friday, June 27, 2008
Feds raid Blackwater in weapons probe

By Mike Baker THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


RALEIGH, N.C.— Federal agents raided Blackwater Worldwide this week as part of an investigation into whether the private security company sidestepped federal laws prohibiting the private purchase of automatic assault rifles, the company said yesterday.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives searched Blackwater’s armory at its corporate headquarters in Moyock on Tuesday as part of the investigation. Court documents show that agents seized 22 guns as evidence from a vault dedicated to county authorities.

The company signed agreements in 2005 in which Blackwater financed the purchase of 34 automatic weapons for the Camden County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Tony Perry became the official owner of the weapons, but Blackwater was allowed to keep most of the guns at its armory.


Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying fully automatic weapons, unless they were manufactured and registered before May 1986, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.

One of the 2005 agreements says the weapons will be kept under “lock and key” and doesn’t describe whether Blackwater would use the guns.

“We believe all aspects of our contracts with the sheriff’s office are lawful and proper,” Tyrrell said, adding that the ATF has known about the arrangement for a long time.

Tyrrell also said federal authorities have known about the weapons for years and that investigators got a complete look at the company’s cache in 2005 after two employees were fired.

Kenneth Wayne Cashwell and William Ellsworth “Max” Grumiaux were sentenced this year on gunrunning charges, but they were spared prison time after federal prosecutors asked a judge to approve a lighter sentence because of their ongoing cooperation in a weapons investigation.

Blackwater said it fired the men after finding they had been stealing from the company. Cashwell operated Blackwater’s armory in 2005, Tyrrell said.

“When these guys were fired, we invited (ATF) in to do a full search of everything we possessed,” Tyrrell said. “They did a full audit, and those weapons were there at that time.”

She said it is not unusual for Blackwater to store automatic weapons because the company is licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture firearms.

The 2005 agreements give the sheriff’s office unlimited access to the weapons, including 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters. But Perry has said his department has only used the AK-47s in practice at Blackwater and that none of his 19 deputies are qualified to use them.

 

[Garys]

This is interesting, How Gun Control Lost

Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated—with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention—and notoriety—by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

 

[strangenh]

Does or does not the 2nd Amendment refer to military arms? I am still unclear on this. I thought the Miller case said it does because the sawed off shotgun "allegedly" wasn't of military use". This past week's ruling took it a step further to say it is an individual's right. So, are we allowed M16's or "just" AR15's? This could be the crux of it, no?

Check out:

Feds raid Blackwater in weapons probe

That will be a case for another day. I doubt, reading Heller, that the 1934 NFA will be ruled unconstitutional, meaning BW could still turn out to be on the hot seat for illicit transfers. On the other hand, the provision of the 1986 FOPA closing down the registry to new items may be unconstitutional. A closed registry is not a registry but a back-door ban.