Two polls on the D.C. Gun Ban matter

[stevie_d_64]

I know what I'd like to do with Mr. Paul Helmke's (70 years of democratically-expressed will) garbage...

But that would just make me a mean person...Unreasonable, irrational, emotional, kooky, paranoid...

Ohhh, I forgot one, un-educated...

[Mithras61]

I know what I'd like to do with Mr. Paul Helmke's (70 years of democratically-expressed will) garbage...

But that would just make me a mean person...Unreasonable, irrational, emotional, kooky, paranoid...

Ohhh, I forgot one, un-educated...

I'm still trying to figure out what "democratically-expressed will" has to do with anything. Firstly, this is about the law of the land as laid out in the Constitution. Secondly, we don't live in a democracy (THANK GOD!), we live in a representative republic, and there is no "majority rules" to the law. We don't have laws just because the majority of people think they are okay.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas- what do you think the likelyhood is that:

a) the full Court of Appeals will hear, and reverse,

and

b) if the full CofA reverses, what are the odds that SCOTUS will grant cert?

I think there is a very good chance the full court will hear the case. I wouldn't venture a guess as to whether they will reverse the decision. Much of the language in the opinion is taken directly from the NRA's brief, so I'm biased. Nevertheless, I feel the legal arguments are compelling and I don't see how any intellectually honest judge would accept D.C.'s arguments. The "D.C. is not a state" argument would normally be a good way to side-step the 2A issue, but not in this context. If the 2A doesn't apply to D.C. residences because it isn't a state, then the other rights in the Bill of Rights don't either. The one thing they might try is stating that the 2A has not been applied to the states, and reverse on that grounds, not on the individual v. collective right issue.

Chas.

[KBCraig]

Much of the language in the opinion is taken directly from the NRA's brief, so I'm biased.

I'm glad the NRA provided a helpful brief, especially after they opposed the suit in the first place, and tried to derail it.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200 ... -6859r.htm

[stevie_d_64]

The one thing they might try is stating that the 2A has not been applied to the states, and reverse on that grounds, not on the individual v. collective right issue.

Chas.

Can you imagine the ripple (no, tsunami) effect that would have???

[Charles L. Cotton]

Much of the language in the opinion is taken directly from the NRA's brief, so I'm biased.

I'm glad the NRA provided a helpful brief, especially after they opposed the suit in the first place, and tried to derail it.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200 ... -6859r.htm

There are very good reasons why lawsuits are filed, when they are filed, and where they are filed. It’s equally important who “runs� the lawsuit. I’m not going to go into information I have because of being a member on the NRA Legal Affairs Committee or as a Trustee on the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, but there is a lot more to this story than the ranting of two interested parties, a whole lot more.

If you want to see what can happen when some attorney thinks he has a great Second Amendment case and won’t listen to the experts in the field, then take a look at Silveria v. Lockyer, 313 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). These people were so sure they had a great Second Amendment case that it didn’t matter that it was pending in the 9th Circuit. They were wrong and oh so surprised when they lost! And this wasn’t just another loss, it’s one more circuit court saying there was no “individual� right created by the Second Amendment. They tried to get the Supreme Court to hear it and thank God the Court rejected the case. No matter how strongly we feel about the Second Amendment, these legal battles are fought in the real world with bias and prejudice stronger in some areas of the country than in others. These factors must be considered when picking our battles. Remember, we won by one vote and the full D.C. Court of Appeals likely will hear the case and could change the outcome. If so, I'm sure the NRA-bashers will blame us for the loss.

Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment.

This one sentence destroys any minimal level of credibility Messrs. Levy and Healy may have enjoyed. It’s just as absurd for them to make such a statement as for Sara Brady to accuse the NRA of being “the criminals’ best friend.� But I see no end to NRA-bashers making such statements.

Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.

A “copycat� suit? I wonder what information Messrs. Levy and Healy had concerning NRA’s on-going projects? Perhaps there was a better venue for such a challenge; perhaps in an appellate circuit that offered a far better chance of success? The highlighted phrase gives a little insight into the legal prowess with which “their� lawsuit was being handled. Apparently, they were far more concerned with a race to the headlines than in mounting the most complete and broad-based legal challenge possible. Any attorney worth his salt knows you don’t go to court, especially an appellate court, without asserting every possible ground for your client to prevail. You don’t get a second chance; if it’s not argued, it’s waived. What lawyer would you want; one that says “let’s do it first� or the one that says “let’s do it right?�

After complaining about the NRA-backed legislation that would have repealed the D.C. gun ban, Msgr. Levy and Healy had this to say:

Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.

What will the Supreme Court decide on the Second Amendment? That’s unknown, but what is known is that it will be dramatic! If it ultimately rules it is an individual right, then it’s a tremendous boost for our cause. If it also rules it a “fundamental� right, then the game is over, until Congress passes a constitutional amendment to repeal or limit the Second Amendment. However, if it rules the Second Amendment to be a collective right, then it will mark the beginning of the end for our side. You can rest assured that votes are being counted on the Supreme Court now, to the extent these things can be prognosticated, and I don’t see any knowledgeable people on our side of the Second Amendment issue dancing a jig. Can we win in the Supreme Court? Of course. We can also loose. And contrary to what Messrs. Levy and Healy contend, their case isn’t perfect. It’s factual basis is such that an opinion could be rendered stating only that people can have guns in their homes. Then, we have to try to get another case, a far better one, into the Supreme Court for yet another decision that could go our way or not.

This is a great decision; one that might force an end of the fight - one way or the other.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Charles...

I believe it is above even an individual right, or a fundamental right...These two terms being defined by man...

It IS an "inalienable right"...Endowed by our creator...There is no higher authority or more moral than that right...

When the argument is made and cast against those who would infringe upon this inalienable right, it is like throwing holy water on them...They cringe! And rightfully so...They have no counter for it...

For the longest time the liberal, socialist, atheist movement in this country have suceeded in removing moral thought and clarity from the way we do business, and the attack on the Second Amendment is just another block left for them to topple...

They'll keep the First Amendment around and tolerate it up to the point where the "people", our citizenry who take our countries principles seriously enough to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect it are unable to do so in any effective way...

What this leads to I can only imagine...I personally would like to avoid losing any more ground...