Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=247438)

Big_Rob | 03-17-2008 02:41 PM
If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller Heres the NRA-ILA website that is following it. http://www.nraila.org/heller/ Our day in court as American firearms owners is tomorrow. Hopefully this issue is put to bed once and for all.

Prometheus | 03-17-2008 02:59 PM
Re: If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller The NRA is a fraud Read the traitors breif the nra filed in the case.... read it carefully. Might as well have been written by the brady bunch. Then read the Gun Owners of America's breif. Then join them, www.gunowners.org

jaybone | 03-17-2008 03:16 PM
Re: If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller I don't think it will put anything to bed once and for all for one reason: It is DC, which is 100% under the jurisdiction of Congress: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States." While a favorable ruling could be referenced in case law, it would only strictly apply to DC and federal lands. This case exists in a bubble, because of discrete jurisdictions.

Big_Rob | 03-19-2008 09:43 AM
Re: If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller I found this on another forum Quote:
Dear GCO Member, GCO Vice President John Monroe watched the oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court today after spending the night on the sidewalk in 30 degree weather. He wanted to pass on his impressions to you, although he warned that he is foggy and sleepy after waiting outside all night. Interestingly, machine guns received a lot of discussion in a case not involving machine guns at all. Likely To Affirm Roberts Scalia Kennedy Alito Thomas asked no questions, but he is a sure bet. Hostile Souter Breyer Hard to read Ginsburg (a little negative, though) Stevens Respondent Alan Gura gave away machine guns - he opined that they are not in common use, so there is nothing wrong with an absolute ban. He brought this up without a question on the subject being raised. Justice Ginsburg asked whether this was not a standard military weapon that could not be banned consistent with the Second Amendment, but Gura did not take the bait. John Monroe's view is that Gura should have simply stated that this case does not involve machine guns. The Plaintiffs were not even challenging DC's ban on certain semi-automatic rifles. Overall, Alan Gura did a good job. He argued that three was a militia purpose to the right, but that was not the only purpose. A right of self defense is included. This caught the attention of Justice Kennedy who said surely in frontier days there must have been a concern over defending against Indians, wolves and bears, so one can safely assume that self defense is included. Justice Ginsburg also asked if there is any right to own a gun after the age of 45 (since the militia law is only up to age 45). Petitioner DC argued pretty much in line with their brief. There is nothing wrong with a ban on handguns, so long as other guns are allowed. Justice Roberts hammered at the trigger lock requirement, "How long is it going to take me when I hear glass break at night to find the gun, put on my glasses, take off the lock, and find the ammunition and then load it?" DC argued that the only gun needed for militia duty is a militia weapon. Justice Scalia asked whether he could have more than one gun, including different calibers and the like, and DC responded that it would not make sense to limit the right to owning only one gun. Justice Kennedy then interrupted and asked how DC came to that conclusion based on constituional analysis, and DC could not answer. Amicus Department of Justice - They did not say that the case would kill machine guns, but they stuck to the intermediate scrutiny argument. Chief Justice Roberts said, "Don't worry about the standard of review that may be applicable to another constitutional analysis. Can't we just say the law is or is not constitutional?" Justice Scalia asked how this right is different from other fundamental rights like free speech, to which strict scrutiny is applied. The other Justices did not comment on the standard of review. DOJ said it was a pre-existing right, and therefore the same restrictions that were applied before the constitution would be fine. Justice Scalia said that we still apply strict scrutiny to free speech, which is a pre-existing right, and DOJ did not reply. Chief Justice Roberts claimed several times that there was some pre-existing ban on "carrying to market," so this sort of restriction should be ok as a pre-existing restriction. He did not provide a citation, but this caused John Monroe concern about Chief Justice Robert's view of future cases involving bearing (carrying) firearms, as opposed to keeping them at home. Justice Scalia was quick to dismiss machine guns as "not in common usage." This is a part of the Miller test. The DOJ said there are 100,000 machine guns legally in civilian hands. Justice Scalia asked what is the population of the United States, and, when he heard 300,000,000, he said, that does not sound like common usage. This was as much as we could get out of Mr. Monroe before he headed off to get some sleep . . . GCO - The Voice of the Second Amendment in Georgia www.GeorgiaCarry.org

45 ACP | 03-24-2008 02:00 PM
Re: If you're following District of Columbia Vs. Heller Quote:
Originally Posted by jaybone (Post 1016185) I don't think it will put anything to bed once and for all for one reason: It is DC, which is 100% under the jurisdiction of Congress: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States." While a favorable ruling could be referenced in case law, it would only strictly apply to DC and federal lands. This case exists in a bubble, because of discrete jurisdictions.
However, free speech extends to DC. Why wouldn't the IIA?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM