1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

2nd Amendment Going to Court

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Wayne In ny, Jul 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wayne In ny

    Wayne In ny TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    72
    Keep our eye on this one.
     
  2. Sgt. Mike

    Sgt. Mike TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    301
  3. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    The Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. I hope they do. It's about time the Court adressed this issue.
     
  4. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    They will hear it - I am sure they would like to hear it right now with who makes up the SC now.

    It will be good for the country!

    Individual right to keep and bear arms
     
  5. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    " it is my understanding that the ONLY Supreme Court ruling on this issue did NOT see it as an individual right, and supported keeping and bearing arms ONLY as a group (militia) right. That the NRA has not taken this issue to the supreme court long ago seems to me that it feels it would lose, and then have to quit their very profitable rabble-rousing."

    In US v Miller, the Supreme Court found that Miller did not have a Constitutional right to posses a saw-off because it was not a militia weapon, and therefore not protected by the 2nd.

    There have been attempts to bring the issue of the 2nd before the Court, but the Court has chosen not to hear those cases, so Miller stands as of now. Many, many federal and local laws have been put in place regulating firearms, and they've been challanged, but the Supreme Court has refused to hear them.

    I'd like to see this case go before the Court, but I don't think the likely result is at all clear. The "militia" part of the second would have to be explained in a decision, and the court could read that in any of several ways.

    A firm, clear decision by the SC would not do anything good for the NRA. Either way, a clear law-of-the-land decision would put an and to the argument. That would be a good thing. It would put an end to the *they* are after our guns. Either *they*, and that means us, all of us who vote, would enact sensible, clear gun laws, or the other *they*, the samll but shrill fringe groups, would be free to carry their full-autos, grenade launchers, and every other sort of "arm".
     
  6. Wayne In ny

    Wayne In ny TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    72
    Wednesday, July 18, 2007

    Gun owners urge Court to move case along

    10:25 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)

    Washington, D.C., residents who oppose the city's strict handgun control law urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to move along, without delay, the city government's appeal of a federal appeals court striking down that law under the Second Amendment. Invoking the half-century old admonitions of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter, the local citizens told the Court that it should not be difficult for city lawyers to promptly prepare their petition for review. The document can be found here.

    The challengers to the local law told the Court that they"look forward" to supporting Supreme Court review of the case, but argued that the city's appeal papers should be filed, as now scheduled, "no later than Aug. 6."

    The city on Monday asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of the time to file the city's petition in the case of District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller, et al. (extension application 07A51). The city argued that it had taken on additional attorneys who needed to become familiar with the issues, and that city officials had only recently decide actually to appeal the case.

    Quoting a 1957 order of the Court (Brody v. U.S.), the local gun owners said Justice Frankfurter had remarked: "I cannot emphasize too strongly that petitions for certiorari all too frequently misconceive the true nature of such petitions -- the considerations governing review on certiorari -- and the manner of presenting them. It does not require heavy research to charge the understanding of this Court adequately on the gravity of the issue on which review is sought and to prove to the Court the appropriateness of granting a petition for writ of certiorari."

    In their filing, the local residents said that the city had stretched out the time for considering the case in lower courts, and argued that the city has had "five months to ponder an unopposed certiorari petition on a single question of law." That, they said, "should sufficient....Petitioners should conform their litigation plans to the Court's rules, and not the other way around."
     
  7. incognito

    incognito TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    "a clear law-of-the-land decision would put an and to the argument."

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    roflmao.............

    like row v. wade put an end to the abortion argument


    pleeeeeeeeese

    i can't take any more of this, my guts are hurting from laughing
     
  8. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "like row v. wade put an end to the abortion argument"

    Can you name a state in which abortion is not legal?
     
  9. incognito

    incognito TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    exactly...........

    and would you say the argument was ended with roe v. wade?
     
  10. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    This could be bad news if it happens

    there are always many possible outcomes and cases are very fact specific-- so the issues you think are raised may not be ruled on at all

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  11. 1atatime

    1atatime TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    108
    Years ago I did a research paper on US v. Miller. They looked at the term "militia" in the military sense, not in the sense the framers used it. To the Framers, "militia" meant the whole body of the people available for service for the common defense. In general terms, this meant all men ages about 15-55.

    However, in Miller, the appeal from the District Court went direct to the Supremes because there was no intermediate appellate court at the time. Further, the District court had tossed the case out on 2nd Amendment grounds, and Mr. Miller was never heard from again. The Feds appealed, and about 6 lawyers wrote briefs on behalf of the Government. No one represented Miller, nor was there any brief or argument on behalf of his position.The Fed's major interest was to keep the Gun Control Act of 1933 intact. (That law outlawed most people from having fully automatic (machine guns) weapons and short barrelled (under 18") guns. Remember that the Act was developed during prohibition and passed just after prohibition ended. They still wanted to take these guns out of the hands of Mafia mobsters and the Dillinger/Nelson/Barrow types.

    What was interesting was that in dicta, one of the Justices noted that he could not take judicial notice that a short barrelled weapon had any military value. What makes that comment interesting is that the Winchester Models 12 & 97 trench guns had been in common use a few years earlier in WWI, and even in 1938 they were used in virtually every prison in the US.

    The natural logic that flows from Miller (some of which has been addressed in District and Appellate courts)is that if a weapon must have "military use", then obviously machine guns, fully equipped tanks,fighter planes, bazookas and hand grenades should be part of the right. Since those conclusions are silly, so is the ultimate conclusion of Miller.

    BUT: Miller served its purpose; the 1933 Act was upheld.
     
  12. Alaskamodel12

    Alaskamodel12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Here's what the Brady people sent out last week regarding this matter:


    Dear ____,

    District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced this week that the District will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia — an assault on D.C. gun laws and one that could threaten every city's gun laws.

    The U.S. Supreme Court could decide in about three months whether they will hear the case and each month brings a tidal wave of work for the Brady Center to defend our nation's gun laws. We must be geared-up to fight this battle. Simply put: we need your support today!

    Please click here to make a tax-deductible commitment of $25 or more. Your gift today will help us prepare for the incredibly large amount of work that needs to be conducted to hold off this assault on our nation's gun laws.

    You'll recall, in a 2-1 decision this past spring, a federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.'s long-standing restrictions on handguns based on a twisted view of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while ignoring more than 60 years of precedent — a decision that endangers America's gun laws coast-to-coast.

    This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to save America's gun laws by building a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

    Your tax-deductible gift of $25 or more today is critical to our success!

    We must prepare for a long hard battle. So much of what we have worked for in the past and everything we're currently working on could be destroyed by the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges who chose to ignore more than 60 years of precedent in order to help the gun lobby accomplish in the courts what it has been unable to accomplish in Congress.

    Please respond today. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Sarah Brady, Chair
    Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
     
  13. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    I can't help feeling uneasy about such a question before the Supreme Court. Certainly, we may gain an important decision. But, the Supreme Court has twisted both logic and the Constitution in the past and who knows what might happen.

    Pat Ireland
     
  14. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    The Miller case was won by DEFAULT because the defandant (Miller), was DEAD when the case was heard.

    The case had nothing to do with individual rights. It had to do with whether the US believed the "sawed off shotgun" was a "militia" weapon. (Funny thing, today there are more short barreled shotguns being used in Iraq and Afghanistan than at any other time in US history - along with M-14s and M-1As and Remington 700s)

    On another issue, how is it, that donations to the brady bunch are TAX DEDUCTIBLE? My donations to NRA-ILA (PVF) are not.
     
  15. AJKohler

    AJKohler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    330
    Tanks, fighter planes and bazookas - not to mention artillery, recoilless rifles, mortars and a host of other weapons - would not be necessarily protected. All of those can be logically separated out as crew-served weapons, and the intent of the Amendment is easy to read as protecting the individual right to keep and bear INDIVIDUAL weapons, the sort of weapon(s) which a militia person would need and use by himself.

    And yes, I recognize that I left out grenades - for the obvious reason that they are individual weapons.

    Given the host of gun control laws across this nation and the Court's historical reluctance to address the issue, I expect the Court to take the case, strike down the law but finesse the decision so as to leave most such laws in place. Alternatively, they could decline to hear it and leave the appellate decision striking down the DC law in force, which would leave the entire issue just as muddy as it is now. But that would surprise me, since it only takes four justices to hear a case and I expect that we have at least that many. Alito is a shotgunner, I've heard.

    Just my prediction, but FWIW, I called the Pledge of Allegiance case correctly, so I'm batting 1 for 1 so far.

    Tony
     
  16. Wilma Harris

    Wilma Harris TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    188
    Assuming the case will wind up in the Supeme Court, we all need to thank our lucky stars that Bush, instead of Gore or Kerry, was in office to make the new appointments to the Court. We all know what kind of appointments would have come out of either of those two.

    If the Court does not hear this one, I feel that before long they will rule on the 2nd. Ammendment. Keep our fingers crossed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.