Where do we stand after Heller?

[1776 Rebel]

I just came across this article on the Huffington Post (excuse me while I vomit). While I don't like his tone I would like to understand if he is right in the overall point. After Heller we are no further in the courts than before?

To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.

Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-new-second-amendment_b_154783.html

[CurrieS103]

This just a test-the-waters and warm up for what's to come.

[pioneer]

Heller v. D.C., by design had a very narrow focus.  Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right, or not?  As we all know, the SS ruled (barely) that it is indeed an individual right.  The attorneys for Heller did not wish to bring in all of the other issues, in order to avoid muddying the waters.  There is a very good argument being made that if other issues, such as possession of machine guns, etc., was brought in, Heller would have gone down in flames. 

Now that it is established in law on the federal level, that gun ownership is an individual right, the other cases will work themselves up in the system.  With Heller as a precedent, and with the current makeup of the court, we have about a 50/50 chance on any of the other issues.  Some we will win, some we will lose.  that's how it works.  My fear is that Obama will nominate and the Democrat congress will rubber-stamp, liberal, anti-freedom judges.  When (not if) that happens, the odds will most certainly turn against us.

It's going to be a tough, long, expensive fight.  If you are a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, shame on you, and we are tired of pulling your weight.  Even thought you don't like the NRA, they are the big kid on our block and a lobbyist that many congressmen and senators pay attention to.  I don't always agree with NRA, but then I don't always agree with my wife either.  It's coming down to crunch time and it is no time for gun owners to be divided.  We need to unite in order to have the clout and the money to put up a fight.  Bickering between NRA and GOA must stop, or we all lose.  It's that simple. 

 

[ericire12]

Bingo! Obama will take away our guns and other freedoms through activist judges. He said it himself that he does not have the votes in congress to take away guns, even if he wanted to. He is a long time believer and participant in the practice of legislating guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

As the old saying goes.... How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

[Fatman]

Heller v. D.C., by design had a very narrow focus.  Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right, or not?  As we all know, the SS ruled (barely) that it is indeed an individual right.  The attorneys for Heller did not wish to bring in all of the other issues, in order to avoid muddying the waters.  There is a very good argument being made that if other issues, such as possession of machine guns, etc., was brought in, Heller would have gone down in flames. 

Now that it is established in law on the federal level, that gun ownership is an individual right, the other cases will work themselves up in the system.  With Heller as a precedent, and with the current makeup of the court, we have about a 50/50 chance on any of the other issues.  Some we will win, some we will lose.  that's how it works.  My fear is that Obama will nominate and the Democrat congress will rubber-stamp, liberal, anti-freedom judges.  When (not if) that happens, the odds will most certainly turn against us.

It's going to be a tough, long, expensive fight.  If you are a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, shame on you, and we are tired of pulling your weight.  Even thought you don't like the NRA, they are the big kid on our block and a lobbyist that many congressmen and senators pay attention to.  I don't always agree with NRA, but then I don't always agree with my wife either.  It's coming down to crunch time and it is no time for gun owners to be divided.  We need to unite in order to have the clout and the money to put up a fight.  Bickering between NRA and GOA must stop, or we all lose.  It's that simple. 

 

Fortunately for us, the justices most likely to be replaced are all liberal anyway.  And there is the chance someone he appoints turns out to be a reverse Souter.  Always think happy thoughts. 

[Sponsor]

[1776 Rebel]

Don't focus solely on the US Supreme Court and its 9 folks. Not every case rises to and is ACCEPTED by SCOTUS. Nor are all the defendants able to afford appeals. That is why the 600 some odd Federal judges are so important. The President makes dozens of those appts also. 

[PegLeg45]

Heller v. D.C., by design had a very narrow focus.  Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right, or not?  As we all know, the SS ruled (barely) that it is indeed an individual right.  The attorneys for Heller did not wish to bring in all of the other issues, in order to avoid muddying the waters.  There is a very good argument being made that if other issues, such as possession of machine guns, etc., was brought in, Heller would have gone down in flames. 

Now that it is established in law on the federal level, that gun ownership is an individual right, the other cases will work themselves up in the system.  With Heller as a precedent, and with the current makeup of the court, we have about a 50/50 chance on any of the other issues.  Some we will win, some we will lose.  that's how it works.  My fear is that Obama will nominate and the Democrat congress will rubber-stamp, liberal, anti-freedom judges.  When (not if) that happens, the odds will most certainly turn against us.

It's going to be a tough, long, expensive fight.  If you are a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, shame on you, and we are tired of pulling your weight.  Even thought you don't like the NRA, they are the big kid on our block and a lobbyist that many congressmen and senators pay attention to.  I don't always agree with NRA, but then I don't always agree with my wife either.  It's coming down to crunch time and it is no time for gun owners to be divided.  We need to unite in order to have the clout and the money to put up a fight.  Bickering between NRA and GOA must stop, or we all lose.  It's that simple. 

 

Well said.
Even if you don't go along 100% with the NRA, it is still at the forefront of the main battle. With the collective dollars of members, they can afford to fight the fight we can't fight alone.

[tt11758]

Well said.
Even if you don't go along 100% with the NRA, it is still at the forefront of the main battle. With the collective dollars of members, they can afford to fight the fight we can't fight alone.

In other words, if we don't hang together, we shall surely all hang seperately.

[MikeBjerum]

Well said.
Even if you don't go along 100% with the NRA, it is still at the forefront of the main battle. With the collective dollars of members, they can afford to fight the fight we can't fight alone.

Of gunowners, shooters and hunters that I know that are anti-NRA the number one thing I hear is the NRA's lack of flexibility and negotiation.  I hear that the NRA is a take it or leave it no give group.  It sounds harsh, but that is what I want from a group that is fighting to protect our Rights and to restore Rights that have been taken away or restricted. 

What type of stance do you think the opponents take?  The anti's do a very good job of saying all they want is "reasonable and common sense" items.  By positioning themselves with words like this it makes us look unreasonable and lacking in common sense when we fight them.

If I had to agree 100% with everyone I was associated with I would be leading a lonely life, and I wouldn't have a wife or kids either.

[TAB]

In other words, if we don't hang together, we shall surely all hang seperately.

i'd rather hang then help the NRA.

The NRA is no friend of gun owners.  Just look at thier record on class 3 weapons.