Supreme Court agreeds to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment

[GOAL]

The NRA does not help finance GOAL. Since I have been the E.D. at GOAL, the NRA has given us one small grant. They do help us out with research and sending out alerts when we need it. They also do send a lobbyist in several times a year to help me out in the State House.

 

[fubar]

Thanks for the clarification.

Then I am guessing it's safe to assume , as I believe most Mass. Shooters do , that the NRA has actually written us off as a lost cause.

I'll still retain my membership for their work in opposing the national Democrat machine , but whatever bonus change I can come up will go to you guys.

 

[WayneWong]

Thanks for the clarification.

Then I am guessing it's safe to assume , as I believe most Mass. Shooters do , that the NRA has actually written us off as a lost cause.

I'll still retain my membership for their work in opposing the national Democrat machine , but whatever bonus change I can come up will go to you guys.

Is their an NRA membership breakdown by state? If and when the SC rules 2A is an individual right, that is the time to start clamoring and filing appeals, lawsuits, and complaints. The next 6 or 8 months will be a window of opportunity, especially after the decision.

Don't even talk about an adverse decision. We will be cooked.

 

[NFD9]

Thanks for the clarification.

Then I am guessing it's safe to assume , as I believe most Mass. Shooters do , that the NRA has actually written us off as a lost cause.

I'll still retain my membership for their work in opposing the national Democrat machine , but whatever bonus change I can come up will go to you guys.

+1

 

[drgrant]

Don't even talk about an adverse decision. We will be cooked.

Not really. Worst case basically supports the status quo- which
is the states and feds can keep making laws which essentially
urinate on the essence of the constitution- it's something they've
been doing for years anyways. A "loss" here is a lost
opportunity, not a "landslide victory for antis" as the NRA had
tried to lead people to believe. This is a CLEAR case of "nothing
ventured nothing gained" if the issue wasn't being pushed like it is
by Alan Gura and Co. Don't get me wrong, the NRA is
important, but this is one issue they were clearly wrong on. (not
sure what their official position is now, they might be backpedaling
for all I know, or even saying they "support" it, after getting floods
of angry correspondence from members, etc. )


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Thanks for the clarification.

Then I am guessing it's safe to assume , as I believe most Mass. Shooters do , that the NRA has actually written us off as a lost cause.

I think what it is, is the NRA probably views lobbying in MA
as pissing into the wind, as opposed to playing political games in
higher gun owner per capita states which have "teetering
elections, which can be influenced significantly by outing a
candidate as anti or pro gun. In MA, the NRA could exert
a lot of effort into singing the praises of a given candidate, for
very little political gain realized on the other end. A pol's
stance on gun politics in MA rarely, if ever, will effect their viability
in any meaningful way. There simply aren't enough "serious
gun owners" in MA who are registered voters. The legal "gun
owners per capita" here factor just too low. Even if EVERY
gun owner in MA voted (even the guys with FIDs) the numbers
would still be too small to make a serious difference, at least
with regards to influencing pols.

-Mike

 

[Cato]

Considering the phrase "perception is 90% of reality", a favorable outcome in this case could prove to be more beneficial indirectly as many people will then accept the concept of an individual right.

 

[pdm]

Bumping this thread with an update. The lawyers for Heller have received DC's briefs: http://dcguncase.com/blog/2008/01/04/dc-merits-brief/

 

[Coyote33]

DC Gun Law Violates Home Rule Act

 

[jkelly]

Isn't "The American Hunters and Shooters Association" the ANTI shill organization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[MaverickNH]

Looks like a ploy to distract SCOTUS from making a ruling on the 2ndA and have them just send it back to the DC courts. Filing it with Respondants briefs does appear to be a scam.

The leaders of the AHSA are:[8]:

Ray Schoenke, founding president [9] A former football player for the Washington Redskins, Schoenke ran for Governor of Maryland as a Democrat and has given "millions" to Democratic politicians and causes according to a January 19, 1998 Washington Post article.[10] Among the groups that Schoenke has donated to are two that actively lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc.[11][12] and America Coming Together. Schoenke was on the Governor's Commission on Gun Violence in 1996.

Joseph J. Vince, Jr., a member of the Board of Directors is the former chief of the BATF's crime guns analysis branch. Currently, he is a principal of Crime Gun Solutions. HCI has hired Crime Gun Solutions in order to support numerous gun control laws,[14][15] to support HCI's lawsuits against firearm dealers[16] and he was a signer on a letter submitted to Congress opposing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[17]

 

[KMaurer]

It's simply a transparent attempt to provide the court with a basis for striking down the law other than 2nd Amendment grounds, specifically one that would only apply to DC and not any state. It seems that they can read the writing on the wall and are looking for any way to escape with a partial victory.

Ken

 

[jcr]

Don't even talk about an adverse decision. We will be cooked.

Without question it will hurt if they decide that there is no indiviual right (as did the MA SJC in Comm v Davis).

More likely than that facially false position, could be one along the lines of the USDOJ's brief claiming yes there is an idividual right, but it means nothing in as much as any restrictions are allowed.

But, even with any adverse result, we can count on a strongly written dissent with the backiing of 4 justices. Often, dissent opinions become the basis for later majorities.

 

[Coyote33]

Deadly Mantis:

There are also a whole slew of political interest groups who have jumped in, like "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership." My favorite: the Pink Pistols, a GBLT rights group that wants to prevent firearm ownership from being conditioned upon military service (since gays and lesbians can't serve in the military). It's an interesting argument.

Amicus briefs for Heller available in guns case

 

[tuna]

If this case goes for us as well as I hope (based on the DC law, I see it as an individual right, and illegal law to require firearms to be stored inoperative), I think the first Ma. law to fall would be the trigger lock requirement.

I'm all for storing firearms properly, don't get me wrong, but in the case of my house - two licensed adults, no children, no visitors (well, rarely), doors locked and a burglar alarm - you're telling me I'm a criminal if I leave a loaded gun in my dresser?

 

[dwarven1]

I'm all for storing firearms properly, don't get me wrong, but in the case of my house - two licensed adults, no children, no visitors (well, rarely), doors locked and a burglar alarm - you're telling me I'm a criminal if I leave a loaded gun in my dresser?

Yup, you sure are. Now don't you feel ashamed for being such a horrible person?

 

[n1zfg]

I figured a house (if not a room) with all the doors windows, and all other potential avenues of entry secured shut or otherwise locked would qualify it as a "locked container".

Of course, any time it is out of your control, outside of a locked container, (i.e. forget to lock the door on your way into the house, leave a window open, have guests in the house, etc.) then even my "whole house as a locked container" argument goes down in flames.

 

[Scrivener]

I figured a house (if not a room) with all the doors windows, and all other potential avenues of entry secured shut or otherwise locked would qualify it as a "locked container".

You figured wrong.

A "container" is not habitable space, the thousands of illegals who were smuggled here in same notwithstanding.

 

[NFD9]

You figured wrong.

A "container" is not habitable space, the thousands of illegals who were smuggled here in same notwithstanding.

 

[pdm]

You figured wrong.

A "container" is not habitable space, the thousands of illegals who were smuggled here in same notwithstanding.

There's a case on point for this. Someone had a gun stolen and tried to claim his locked bedroom door met the safe storage requirements, if I remember correctly.

 

[RKG]

There's a case on point for this. Someone had a gun stolen and tried to claim his locked bedroom door met the safe storage requirements, if I remember correctly.

I believe that defense failed not because the bedroom couldn't be a secure storage room, but because, while it was locked, he left the key in the door.

 

[Scrivener]

I believe that defense failed not because the bedroom couldn't be a secure storage room, but because, while it was locked, he left the key in the door.

Ummm, don't think so. IIRC, the "lock" was one of those worthless bathroom door "locks." You know the kind; they open with a finishing nail and have as there sole purpose to keep someone from accidentally walking in on you. As a lock, they fail to keep out anything past a 5-year old.

 

[doobie]

Isn't "The American Hunters and Shooters Association" the ANTI shill organization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association

It's listed as pro-gun control group...

 

[LoginName]

Getting back on track a bit, this does not look good for us...

Feb 11 2008 Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm

It's bad enough that the SG filed the amicus breif that they did... now they want to present oral arguments?!?

is this the norm or routine in a high profile case where the government has an interest in the decision?

 

[JYARNO]

Just curious, does anyone know what the impetus is for an Attorney General to sign onto an Amici brief for one side or the other? Is it an action that an AG initiates on their own or is it at the prompting or sponsorship of the Governor of Legislature?

Lee

 

[RKG]

Just curious, does anyone know what the impetus is for an Attorney General to sign onto an Amici brief for one side or the other? Is it an action that an AG initiates on their own or is it at the prompting or sponsorship of the Governor of Legislature?

Lee

The taking by the Solicitor General of a position in an appeal to which the United States is not a party occurs in one of two ways:

A) The Attorney General decides, often if not usually in consultation with the President, that the outcome of the appeal could have an impact (one way or another) on a perceived Federal interest; or

B) The Court invites the Solicitor General to provide the opinion of the United States on an issue.

It is not unusual for the SG to purvey the position of the United States on a question of interpretation of a provision of the federal Constitution that is an open question of wide public debate.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

High court strikes down gun ban

Sam said it would be like this.

I asked my Son's Magic 8 Ball months ago and this was its answer.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

From Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection. See how proponents, opponents argued »

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.


City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. See poll results »

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

 

[Admin]

Continue here.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=39173