In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Heller vs. DC 2 - This time it is personal!
Peter Suciu
Member Posts: 69 ✭✭
My colleague, who studied law, wrote an interesting piece on Heller vs. DC 2.
http://www.firearmstruth.com/2010/court-of-appeals-to-hear-heller-2-next-monday
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's gun laws violated individuals' 2nd Amendment Rights. The law struck down by The Court made it virtually impossible for a citizen of the district to own a handgun, even if it never left the person's house. At first some D.C. public officials vowed to defy the ruling, but instead of risking court sanctions the D.C. council passed new gun laws that make it burdensome to own a handgun. Heller and others sued and the United States Court of Appeals of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit will hear arguments starting Monday, November 15.
The question is, what part or parts of the D.C. law go so far as to unreasonably burden a person's 2nd Amendment Rights. The licensing and training fees that are required cost an individual hundreds of dollars. Washington and the surrounding area has to justify these costs as necessary for public health and welfare. A licensing fee that covers the cost of doing a criminal/mental health background check is reasonable but anything other than that isn't and may be ruled a prohibitive tax meant to keep citizens from applying for a license.
One of the most bizarre laws says only approved handguns may be bought. The list is based on a California law and is a backdoor way to ban new firearm models. Even stranger is the color law. For example, Tracy Ambeau Hanson bought an approved Springfield XD-45 but she bought the wrong color handgun. Only black, green or brown XD-45's are approved and her handgun was a bi-tone version. According to the law, the color of the gun makes it unsafe, even thought in all other respects her XD-45 is the same as the approved colors.
Heller 2 will probably make its way to the Supreme Court. Stubborn municipal entities that refuse to follow what is the clear intent of the Heller and the Later McDonald rulings are costing taxpayer's money that could be better spent on other things.
http://www.firearmstruth.com/2010/court-of-appeals-to-hear-heller-2-next-monday
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's gun laws violated individuals' 2nd Amendment Rights. The law struck down by The Court made it virtually impossible for a citizen of the district to own a handgun, even if it never left the person's house. At first some D.C. public officials vowed to defy the ruling, but instead of risking court sanctions the D.C. council passed new gun laws that make it burdensome to own a handgun. Heller and others sued and the United States Court of Appeals of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit will hear arguments starting Monday, November 15.
The question is, what part or parts of the D.C. law go so far as to unreasonably burden a person's 2nd Amendment Rights. The licensing and training fees that are required cost an individual hundreds of dollars. Washington and the surrounding area has to justify these costs as necessary for public health and welfare. A licensing fee that covers the cost of doing a criminal/mental health background check is reasonable but anything other than that isn't and may be ruled a prohibitive tax meant to keep citizens from applying for a license.
One of the most bizarre laws says only approved handguns may be bought. The list is based on a California law and is a backdoor way to ban new firearm models. Even stranger is the color law. For example, Tracy Ambeau Hanson bought an approved Springfield XD-45 but she bought the wrong color handgun. Only black, green or brown XD-45's are approved and her handgun was a bi-tone version. According to the law, the color of the gun makes it unsafe, even thought in all other respects her XD-45 is the same as the approved colors.
Heller 2 will probably make its way to the Supreme Court. Stubborn municipal entities that refuse to follow what is the clear intent of the Heller and the Later McDonald rulings are costing taxpayer's money that could be better spent on other things.
Comments
Was he being sarcastic?
There was NOTHING clear about it. The ruling affirmed the governments ability to INFRINGE, where the constitution clearly says SHALL NOT be infringed.
A licensing fee that covers the cost of doing a criminal/mental health background check is reasonable....
Are you posting this as your "opinion", or merely "fact" codified into law by the Heller decision?
I think this was intended to be opinion based on facts.
So, you agree with infringements such as background checks?
quote:Originally posted by Peter Suciu
I think this was intended to be opinion based on facts.
So, you agree with infringements such as background checks?
It wasn't my opinion in the original post. I noted that a colleague wrote it. I think you are also reading perhaps too much into it... it isn't that he agrees with this infringement himself.
What he is saying that a fee to determine that a criminal isn't the one buying the guy could be considered reasonable under the Second Amendment. I see your point that the wording says, "shall make no infringement on the right to keep and bare arms." That's all well and good, but the First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that you can defame someone, or yell "fire" in a movie theater. The latter is considered dangerous speech and isn't protected.
I have asked my colleague to respond to this, but he has not. I have tried to encourage people to respond on FirearmsTruth.com to keep the debate growing as well. I would also invite you to write a counter point that you don't believe there should be any infringement. I would be happy to post that as an editorial (I wish I could pay, but sadly the site costs more to run than I make from it so far).
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Peter Suciu
I think this was intended to be opinion based on facts.
So, you agree with infringements such as background checks?
It wasn't my opinion in the original post. I noted that a colleague wrote it. I think you are also reading perhaps too much into it... it isn't that he agrees with this infringement himself.
What he is saying that a fee to determine that a criminal isn't the one buying the guy could be considered reasonable under the Second Amendment. I see your point that the wording says, "shall make no infringement on the right to keep and bare arms." That's all well and good, but the First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that you can defame someone, or yell "fire" in a movie theater. The latter is considered dangerous speech and isn't protected.
I have asked my colleague to respond to this, but he has not. I have tried to encourage people to respond on FirearmsTruth.com to keep the debate growing as well. I would also invite you to write a counter point that you don't believe there should be any infringement. I would be happy to post that as an editorial (I wish I could pay, but sadly the site costs more to run than I make from it so far).
Certainly I understand your friend wrote the piece. SInce I do not interact with him/her, I am not interested in them, really. I am interested in you, however. What say you on the matter?
To your point; I was under the false notion that the 1st amendment said "The right of the people to say ANYTHING they wish, whenever they wish, shall not be infringed." Thank you for the clarification. No more yelling "Fire!" at the movie theater for me.[;)]
See the difference?
What he is saying that a fee to determine that a criminal isn't the one buying the guy could be considered reasonable under the Second Amendment. I see your point that the wording says, "shall make no infringement on the right to keep and bare arms." That's all well and good, but the First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that you can defame someone, or yell "fire" in a movie theater. The latter is considered dangerous speech and isn't protected.
Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable.
Brad Steele
So what's the problem?
quote:There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable.
Of course there is. There are restraining orders issued by the courts prohibiting publication, public demonstration, and discussion every day.
Please provide a reference demonstrating that your assertion to the contrary is accurate.
You are correct, Barzillia; preemptive was a poor choice of words. The intent was and is 'There is no prior restraint on free speech absent due process directed at a specific speech or actions, to include, but not limited to National Security, reasonable expectation of provocation to violence, specific violation of copyright, patent infringement, etc.' Obviously the key point is the specific application of due process, typically via court order, prior to such restraint.
Preemptive took less space, but I thank you for forcing the clarification.
Brad Steele
Spot on Don!
You are so full of babooney I don't even know where to start!!!
Spot on Don!
Horse Face, just you remember exactly what Don just said about
an unregistered tongue, before you use your unregistered tongue to others as you did me because as an Iowan I proudly supported Gun Rights.
You can take your "Babooney" comment about me and put it where the sun does not shine!!!
[:)]
Brad Steele
Wow. It really is personal.
[:)]
Not to mention, incomprehensible??????
But I am getting the distinct impression that we have another one who doesn't know the rkba as written, from a hole in the ground??
Wow. It really is personal.
[:)]
Don,I usually do not post too much on the forums. I just most of the time read. But, this guy was out of line big time with me and I am sure other Iowans. For over 50 YEARS I have promoted Gun Rights and I am not about to be insulted by an obvious idiot. We won a Victory here because the Democrats caved and tried to buy our votes with this measure. What has Horse Collar and his buddy, if not himself under another nickname done in their state. Zip, Nuttin!! We have, even if we do have to have a background check done first. We went to the Capitol steps and else where for our cause along with the National NRA. Where were these others on this forum? Not here helping for damn sure. What did they get done in their states for carry rights? Oh yea, nothing. Personal, you bet this is. I'm not going to sit back silent any longer. Some of these people like Horse Neck or Foot in Mouth Horse, what ever it is, does more harm than good. Kinda like a Moderate Republican, yopu know what I mean, a RHINO!
Steve
I happen to support NCIC background checks before we can carry. Even though a certain Moderator in this group says we have not won a victory if a permit is required.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Wow. It really is personal.
[:)]
Not to mention, incomprehensible??????
But I am getting the distinct impression that we have another one who doesn't know the rkba as written, from a hole in the ground??
Perhaps, then perhaps not. The same has to apply first to the one who started name calling. That name started with Horse!
Steve
I happen to support NCIC background checks before we can carry. Even though a certain Moderator in this group says we have not won a victory if a permit is required.
I am glad to know you are a gun-controller by your own admission. Sorry that you fear freedom and your fellow citizen, however.
And pickenup is 100% correct. You have merely affirmed that a right is now a privilege complete with "papers". Sorry you find that to be a victory. I call it a big time loss, but then I have no problem with the 2nd amnedment as written.
Since you do, maybe the best way would be for you to get all those hard working gun-control activists of yours together, and amend the constitution, rather than supporting illegal legislation in opposition to the standing law lof the land? Just a thought.
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
I happen to support NCIC background checks before we can carry. Even though a certain Moderator in this group says we have not won a victory if a permit is required.
I am glad to know you are a gun-controller by your own admission. Sorry that you fear freedom and your fellow citizen, however.
And pickenup is 100% correct. You have merely affirmed that a right is now a privilege complete with "papers". Sorry you find that to be a victory. I call it a big time loss, but then I have no problem with the 2nd amnedment as written.
Since you do, maybe the best way would be for you to get all those hard working gun-control activists of yours together, and amend the constitution, rather than supporting illegal legislation in opposition to the standing law lof the land? Just a thought.
Call it a privilege now. We had none. Now we have at least a privilege. We will go further, but it takes time and we have a major gain here. Again I ask, what have you, both of you won for your state's gun rights this year and what for next year? Yea, again I am right. NOTHING!!! So, I suggest you three stop belly aching about other states who at least do have wins when you three do nothing or lose ground in your own states. Oh yes you idiot, we did vote for a state constitutional convention.
I simply cannot believe how darn stupid and uneducated you guys are about other states rights. You redneck say to me to get our hardworking gun control activists together. See what I meant, some of YOU are the gun owners worst enemies. We voted for a constitutional convention for Iowa. But not for the reason self centered activists like you wish for. We got a few things started and accomplished and you my little right wing fanatic enemy of the people DID NOTHING IN OR FOR YOUR STATES! Your type of all or nothing people are Parasites who try to live off the rest of the people of this great country. So, go ahead and respond and I will also until attacks on people who have a slightly different opinion can express it like myself and others you are insulting and attacking also. You never met anyone as thick skinned as I can be. So, go after me instead of kiwi and others. I am far old enough to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
You said you support NCIC. Disgusting to me, but... so why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?? "He who would give up liberty for perceived safety deserves neither" etc etc
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
Well, debate is not the point here now is it. The point is the name calling of and comments made towards anyone other than a chosen few of you in this group, period. It needs to stop! You people better darn well start showing some civility and respect for others whom may disagree with you on even minute points. But several of you have a bad habit of piling on. Hey, I just tested and proved that it is a fact. Some of you need to back off a little and let some of us win a few more battles. Remember, you cannot win a war unless battles are won in the field.. Not exactly the words from one of Patton's remarks, but only because I can't remember the correct words nowadays. So don't quote me on that one. However, I do not put up with any Nancy Pelosi bull crap from Democrats NOR will I put up with any old time McCarthyism from you guys. So, bad mouth me all you wish and I will come right back to defend the people like myself whom are whether you like it or not of a different opinion than perhaps yourselves.
Oh, by the way. No matter how much you may piss me off, I still like to buy or sell through the auction side.
Steve
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
You said you support NCIC. Disgusting to me, but... so why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?? "He who would give up liberty for perceived safety deserves neither" etc etc
Wolf, you ain't the 99% and you better well damn know that.
You and at least two of your buddies here are in the probably 1% to 2% of the right wing radical classification.And no,I honestly do not mean that as an insult. It just is that you happen to be.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
You said you support NCIC. Disgusting to me, but... so why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?? "He who would give up liberty for perceived safety deserves neither" etc etc
Wolf, you ain't the 99% and you better well damn know that.
You and at least two of your buddies here are in the probably 1% to 2% of the right wing radical classification.And no,I honestly do not mean that as an insult. It just is that you happen to be.
Re-read Steve, I said 99% of the people are good people and needn't be feared. Therefore no need for the infringement known as NCIC. I'll take my chances. Freedom isn't free, it carries risk. I gladly accept it to NOT live under govt tyranny/control. All these gun laws have nothing to do with criminal control. Criminals don't observe them SURPRISE! That's what MAKES them criminals in the first place. These laws are ONLY about controlling you, and me, and we don't NEED to be controlled, unless yo are a govt who fears folks getting enough of your crap, so you try to keep them under your thumb so you can get away with your crap. (deep breath) your turn.
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
You said you support NCIC. Disgusting to me, but... so why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?? "He who would give up liberty for perceived safety deserves neither" etc etc
Wolf, you ain't the 99% and you better well damn know that.
You and at least two of your buddies here are in the probably 1% to 2% of the right wing radical classification.And no,I honestly do not mean that as an insult. It just is that you happen to be.
Re-read Steve, I said 99% of the people are good people and needn't be feared. Therefore no need for the infringement known as NCIC. I'll take my chances. Freedom isn't free, it carries risk. I gladly accept it to NOT live under govt tyranny/control. All these gun laws have nothing to do with criminal control. Criminals don't observe them SURPRISE! That's what MAKES them criminals in the first place. These laws are ONLY about controlling you, and me, and we don't NEED to be controlled, unless yo are a govt who fears folks getting enough of your crap, so you try to keep them under your thumb so you can get away with your crap. (deep breath) your turn.
Ok Wolf, you seem to be listening to someone else for a pleasant change. I WANT WHAT YOU WANT AS FAR AS INTERPRETATION OF 2ND AMMENDMENT, but it will never happen by a Fairy waving a majick wand and all changes overnight. We simply have to stop being so divided from within concerning our demands. Gun rights at state level MUST be won FIRST, even if a permit is required. Then and ONLY then will the majority of the voting public in the US be willing to really support the 2nd amendment. I have seen the battles between parties on this for actually over 50 years now! I'm getting weary of the fight, but each year there are less and less of us actually out there trying to do something about it. BUT, THERE ARE NOW THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON THE NET BOTH FOR AND AGAINST GUN RIGHTS, AND NEITHER SIDE IS GETTING MUCH DONE ,IN ACTUALITY. However, the feet on the street have. That's another reason the courts in Wisconsin are changing their tune. They sent people down here and we sent people up there for mutual on ground support. But, HORSE * attacks me. Well, I can fight for rights on the streets, so I certainly will here on Guns whether certain people like it or not.
Steve
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Stevan1
Call it a privilege now. ....
....to defend myself without hesitation or fear of you radical young bucks!
I did call it a privilege, and I was correct.
I sure don't feel young, but thank you.
And you know nothing of what I or anyone but YOU have done in respective states. Seems an older more mature man would recognize that simple point. I don't mind debating, but you are quickly settling into "just entertainment" for me. That's not debate.
You said you support NCIC. Disgusting to me, but... so why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?? "He who would give up liberty for perceived safety deserves neither" etc etc
Wolf, you ain't the 99% and you better well damn know that.
You and at least two of your buddies here are in the probably 1% to 2% of the right wing radical classification.And no,I honestly do not mean that as an insult. It just is that you happen to be.
Re-read Steve, I said 99% of the people are good people and needn't be feared. Therefore no need for the infringement known as NCIC. I'll take my chances. Freedom isn't free, it carries risk. I gladly accept it to NOT live under govt tyranny/control. All these gun laws have nothing to do with criminal control. Criminals don't observe them SURPRISE! That's what MAKES them criminals in the first place. These laws are ONLY about controlling you, and me, and we don't NEED to be controlled, unless yo are a govt who fears folks getting enough of your crap, so you try to keep them under your thumb so you can get away with your crap. (deep breath) your turn.
You need to re-read your own printed words. You did write "So why are you afraid of me and the 99% of good people out there?"
Look at the exact words you yourself put into writing to me and anyone else reading this. You just got caught with your own panties down on that one sir. You right wing radicals twist and turn the truth just like Obama's left wing radicals do every time anyone calls either one of you about the truth. You know I am right. Look at your own writings and those of the ones you support for a classic open example of what I am saying to you.
Yea, I said why are you afraid of me and the other 99% of the people who also happen to be good people. If you missed my intent, oh well. G'night steve. It's been a long day.
Well,you are beginning to mellow a little. That's good. Course, I'm starting to myself in your case. You and I are not that far apart in beliefs. Horse Crap and a Moderator are too far Right Wing to ever be able to further Gun Rights in this country. They are the ones who got too me, not you until you stepped in to support them. You had to fight their battle for them. I feel bad that you had to get into that position. People like those two who take the all or nothing attitude and insult viewers here are doing absolutely nothing but pushing back gun rights and especially giving opponents credible evidence of radical gun supporters. Which I can attest they obviously are far right wing and seem to be on a radical scale.
Steve