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
Help me understand this stuff please
bpost
Member Posts: 32,664 ✭✭✭✭
The court that overturned the DC ban.
Why was THIS court chosen? Why not a Chicago or LA law suit? DC is not a State so does the ruling have less impact?
Can the DC ruling be used as precedent to argue in other courts even though SCOTUS has not heard it?
Can other courts ignore the ruling and make up their own?
This overturning is hollow in many respects. It only allows for in the HOME posession not purchase registration or transport within DC. Or am I missing something?
Why was THIS court chosen? Why not a Chicago or LA law suit? DC is not a State so does the ruling have less impact?
Can the DC ruling be used as precedent to argue in other courts even though SCOTUS has not heard it?
Can other courts ignore the ruling and make up their own?
This overturning is hollow in many respects. It only allows for in the HOME posession not purchase registration or transport within DC. Or am I missing something?
Comments
This precedent, if I am not mistaken, can be used by other claimants, but it will obviously have more impact if and when it is confirmed by the SCOTUS.
I would suggest that this is not a hollow victory. If the decision stands as written, it re-establishes in clear language that the 2nd Amendment guarantees and Individual Right. That is a big step toward where we should have been all along.
Brad Steele
go here and read what JPFO has to say on the subject...
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070312.htm
No matter the case...always they just demand that the existing gun control laws be enforced...
Our friends, the NRA....
One of the guys in GD pointed me in the direction of the Cato institute. These are the guys who fought the D.C court case...
here are some of their writings on the Right to Bear Arms.
http://www.cato.org/ccs/2nd-amendment.html
I'm impressed, not only by their views, but their ability to get things done.
I'm going browse their site for a couple days....Then I'm sending them $100 for their efforts. They've earned it
Anyhoo, I recall hearing a few years ago that the 5th Circuit Emerson decision only applied to lower courts under the 5th Circuit. I don't know if that is true, but if it is true then the DC case may only affect lower courts within that Federal circuit and may or may not set judicial precedent in other circuit courts.
Only a definitive ruling by SCOTUS will affect the entire judiciary.
One other thing to notice is what the NRA is saying/doing about this. They filed another lawsuit that they wanted merged with the DC one because they DO NOT want this case to be decided or ruled on by SCOTUS. The judge decided not to let the two suits be joined which allowed for the DC one to go through and give us this favorable ruling.
If you (or anyone) happen to find the link for this, please post it here.
If the supreme court ruled that all guns were legalized, the NRA would lose support because the freedom was too "constitutional" for their members. They want gun kontrol just bordering on what their members find acceptable in order to keep the money flowing in. That's why I left NRA and went to GOA.
Sad, why not support both; I joined the NRA as a 14 year old Junior in shooting small bore 3 position rifle 1972, I am now a Patron Member. My focus then was competitive rifle shooting. That focus may have changed over the years to other shooting interests but the NRA keeps competitive shooting alive with well planned and executed matches for all nature of shooting enthusiast.
IMHO it takes a poor thought process to think the NRA wants gun control just to keep the ILA alive. The NRA was doing just fine prior to the 1968 GCA and will continue to do so even if every law is overturned.
My .02.
Sad, why not support both; I joined the NRA as a 14 year old Junior in shooting small bore 3 position rifle 1972, I am now a Patron Member. My focus then was competitive rifle shooting. That focus may have changed over the years to other shooting interests but the NRA keeps competitive shooting alive with well planned and executed matches for all nature of shooting enthusiast.
IMHO it takes a poor thought process to think the NRA wants gun control just to keep the ILA alive. The NRA was doing just fine prior to the 1968 GCA and will continue to do so even if every law is overturned.
My .02.
My problem with the NRA isn't a financial one. I would like to have a Title 2 full auto registered to me, but the transferable guns now cost many thousands of dollars. I will eventually buy a $3500 MAC-10 or a $6500 Uzi.
However, the NRA president in 1934 recommended they pass the unconstitutional NFA which requires registration of full autos. Then, in 1968, the NRA helped write the GCA, which among other things said that no more imported full autos could be registered to civilians. Then in 1986, the NRA lobbied for the FOPA, which had the ban on ANY NEW full autos being registered to civilians. As a result, the only full autos that can be transferred to a civilian are the ones imported and registered before 1968, or made domestically and registered before 1986.
To sum it up, the NRA recommended the NFA. They helped with the GCA, and their beloved FOPA stopped any new MG registration. Yet they talk about the FOPA as being their greatest victory.
If the NRA was more sympathetic to the Class III crowd, I would support them. But as of right now, they have supported 3 seperate MG regulations, and done almost nothing to fix the problem.
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
Sad, why not support both; I joined the NRA as a 14 year old Junior in shooting small bore 3 position rifle 1972, I am now a Patron Member. My focus then was competitive rifle shooting. That focus may have changed over the years to other shooting interests but the NRA keeps competitive shooting alive with well planned and executed matches for all nature of shooting enthusiast.
IMHO it takes a poor thought process to think the NRA wants gun control just to keep the ILA alive. The NRA was doing just fine prior to the 1968 GCA and will continue to do so even if every law is overturned.
My .02.
My problem with the NRA isn't a financial one. I would like to have a Title 2 full auto registered to me, but the transferable guns now cost many thousands of dollars. I will eventually buy a $3500 MAC-10 or a $6500 Uzi.
However, the NRA president in 1934 recommended they pass the unconstitutional NFA which requires registration of full autos. Then, in 1968, the NRA helped write the GCA, which among other things said that no more imported full autos could be registered to civilians. Then in 1986, the NRA lobbied for the FOPA, which had the ban on ANY NEW full autos being registered to civilians. As a result, the only full autos that can be transferred to a civilian are the ones imported and registered before 1968, or made domestically and registered before 1986.
To sum it up, the NRA recommended the NFA. They helped with the GCA, and their beloved FOPA stopped any new MG registration. Yet they talk about the FOPA as being their greatest victory.
If the NRA was more sympathetic to the Class III crowd, I would support them. But as of right now, they have supported 3 seperate MG regulations, and done almost nothing to fix the problem.
I guess it depends on who's ox is getting gored. Although I DISPISE Gub'ment controls on much of anything; I don't feel as strongly about class III weapons as you do. I most assuredly don't think banning "The People" from reasonable access to a type of firearm is Constitutional or wise. I also don't know where to draw the line as to what the Second Amendment covers and what is does not.
Fully automatic guns are FUN.....BTDT a lot and if the NRA opposed legal acquisition of them I would like to understand WHY? After all the NRA is the big boy on the block when it comes to BIG impressions upon elected scoundrels. There must have been a deep understanding of reality when they chose that course of action. I will continue to keep the faith in the NRA. I've bet my life upon it's founding ideals.
You do dilute your argument when you start your post about not being financial reasons for NRA oppositions then bring up the high cost of automatic weapons. It is like the drivers in NASCAR. If you want to play you gotta pay. Going fast costs big bucks; how fast do you want to go?
As far as the 'cost' of full auto...every dime over 300-500 bucks is due entirely to government driven policies.
Myself...I don't give a thin damn about full-auto...I got my fill of that in another life. However...rage simmers just under the surface over the laws about full-auto...because I KNOW what the government is up to....and the fact that the NRA supports that tyranny also infurates me.
You do dilute your argument when you start your post about not being financial reasons for NRA oppositions then bring up the high cost of automatic weapons.
I don't see how this dilutes my argument. I am boycotting the NRA because of their anti-gun policies, not because of the cost of joining/contributing. There should not be a law that says I can't legally acquire a full auto Glock 18 just because they were only made after 1986. There should not be a law saying that I can't get a $900 MP5K when they are still being manufactured and sold for that price.
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
You do dilute your argument when you start your post about not being financial reasons for NRA oppositions then bring up the high cost of automatic weapons.
I don't see how this dilutes my argument. I am boycotting the NRA because of their anti-gun policies, not because of the cost of joining/contributing. There should not be a law that says I can't legally acquire a full auto Glock 18 just because they were only made after 1986. There should not be a law saying that I can't get a $900 MP5K when they are still being manufactured and sold for that price.
Sounds good to me.
Fight to change the laws.
The NRA will help you if you do it right.
The one thing the NRA can do is count noses in a political fight; political reality is counting noses to get what you want. When the nose count gets high enough on the other side you are going to lose. It is better to have a smaller loss with the ability to win the next one than to be handed a larger defeat because someone is bull-headed. That is how the NRA operates, that is how life works.
The NRA will help you if you do it right.
This has already proven to be untrue.....
The NRA will help you if its right for them
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
The NRA will help you if you do it right.
This has already proven to be untrue.....
The NRA will help you if its right for them
Few people, groups, or organizations would act otherwise. The NRA, GOA, SAF, etc are not public utilities running on public money and dedicated to serving all citizens.
I would, however, like your opinion on the NRA's attempt to de-rail the D.C lawsuit.
Maybe I missed something here... is there evidence that the NRA is actively trying to derail the D.C. lawsuit?
I am an NRA member, but I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I know what the NRA is about. I've seen them sabotage us in the past. But I haven't seen them try to screw up this one yet. In fact, they were the first to send me an e-mail alert lauding the decision. If anybody has been lukewarm about the D.C. case it is the JPFO.
I want the issue decided, sooner rather than later, for better or for worse.
It disgusts me to no end that the the NRA, who is supposed to stand for gun rights, actively attempts to bring down a a case that could go all the way to the top. I'm sick of being told "It's for your own good, we can't win anyways"....
Appearently, the NRA knows best......just like the government
Excellent point Fox....and one I agree with.
I would, however, like your opinion on the NRA's attempt to de-rail the D.C lawsuit.
I haven't decided if the NRA is indeed trying to de-rail the D.C. Lawsuit.
I haven't decided if the NRA is indeed trying to de-rail the D.C. Lawsuit.
Ok, I understand you not wanting to jump the gun, no pun intended.
Assume that what Mr. Levy says is true. What would your feelings be then?
Assumeing that he is a liar, I'm willing to take back my comments.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I haven't decided if the NRA is indeed trying to de-rail the D.C. Lawsuit.
Ok, I understand you not wanting to jump the gun, no pun intended.
Assume that what Mr. Levy says is true. What would your feelings be then?
Assumeing that he is a liar, I'm willing to take back my comments.
If the NRA, or any pro-gun organization was working against the rights of lawful gun owners I would be outraged. However, I would not immediately call for the abolution of the NRA. Reason being that if nothing else, the continued existance of the NRA bothers, frightens and to a degree intimidates many anti-gun organizations and anti-gun politicans. Why else would have ex-president Clinton made the public statement that the anti-gun stance of his Democratic polititicans and the actions by the NRA put many of those anti-gun politicans out of congress? And of course there is more reasons to support an orgainzation I might not even believe in any m ore.
"Why else would have ex-president Clinton made the public statement that the anti-gun stance of his Democratic polititicans and the actions by the NRA put many of those anti-gun politicans out of congress?"
With all due respect, you just do not understand the Clinton's do you?
If the supreme court ruled that all guns were legalized, the NRA would lose support because the freedom was too "constitutional" for their members. They want gun kontrol just bordering on what their members find acceptable in order to keep the money flowing in. That's why I left NRA and went to GOA.
Interesting take on the NRA. Makes sense though.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I haven't decided if the NRA is indeed trying to de-rail the D.C. Lawsuit.
Ok, I understand you not wanting to jump the gun, no pun intended.
Assume that what Mr. Levy says is true. What would your feelings be then?
Assumeing that he is a liar, I'm willing to take back my comments.
If the NRA, or any pro-gun organization was working against the rights of lawful gun owners I would be outraged. However, I would not immediately call for the abolution of the NRA. Reason being that if nothing else, the continued existance of the NRA bothers, frightens and to a degree intimidates many anti-gun organizations and anti-gun politicans. Why else would have ex-president Clinton made the public statement that the anti-gun stance of his Democratic polititicans and the actions by the NRA put many of those anti-gun politicans out of congress? And of course there is more reasons to support an orgainzation I might not even believe in any m ore.
I read the Commentary in the link above. It seems the NRA is trying to keep a lot of trivial crap from getting to the Supreme Court...and with good cause. They have won a LOT while in the drivers seat.
TO THE NRA BASHERS....If SCOTUS rules handguns are not covered in the 2nd Amendment what are you going to then???? Run your mouth some more? Post things about how you will never give in??? What are you going to do when the TAC-Team hits your door at 4:30 AM?? Are you going to pee your bed as you look down the barrel of a MP-5 as they confiscate your handguns???
Remember; too live and fight another day is better than being dead. Some people on here bash the NRA but don't have a simpleton's clue what a big court case involves in time and money, let alone the strategy needed to WIN the case. The NRA founded in 1871 has been a staunch supporter of Competitive shooting and in the past 40 years the issue of gun rights. I trust them to have WISDOM when it comes to fighting gun laws.
The idiots that claim the NRA would shrivel up and die if not for gun laws are FOS. The NRA has world wide shooting sports to sanction and millions of other gun owners to support them. The ILA is a seperate part of the NRA its funding is seperate and its goals are Political/ Legal. It could close its doors and the NRA would just roll on for another 125 years or so.
Be careful what you ask for. You may not be Fonda of it.
The Founders already wrote THEIR history....NEVER COMPROMISE WITH GUN GRABBERS.
That makes far more sense to me then ALL the drivel that comes from the NRA (oh..excuse me...the ILA)...and their supporters.
THAT...friend...is 'wisdom'.
I read the Commentary in the link above. It seems the NRA is trying to keep a lot of trivial crap from getting to the Supreme Court...and with good cause.
Appearently you consider the right to defend oneself, which is the heart of the D.C case, to be "trivial". It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.....
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
TO THE NRA BASHERS....If SCOTUS rules handguns are not covered in the 2nd Amendment what are you going to then???? Run your mouth some more? Post things about how you will never give in??? What are you going to do when the TAC-Team hits your door at 4:30 AM?? Are you going to pee your bed as you look down the barrel of a MP-5 as they confiscate your handguns???
First of all, if we're going to lose this fight, I'd rather it be because we were too aggressive, rather than too passive.
Secondly, I don't plan on waiting for a "TAC-Team" to kick my door in.
You, along with many members of this board, assume that the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners and therefore have unlimited discresion in gun-rights cases. They don't speak for everyone, they sure as hell don't speak for me.
Its amazing that one can wail at the lack of unity within the gun owner community in one post, then actively encourage one group to sabatoge another in a later post.....
I'm sick of the "it's for your own good" B.S.....If I wanted that, I'd join the Brady Campaign.
Enjoy your kool-aid
You guys want UNITY ? Come over to the Constitution...UNIFY with me. Stop supporting anti-gun, anti-Gun organizations.
Stop pretending you support the Second as you smugly proclaim how NICS stops criminals from getting guns...how insane is that belief..
No, friend....YOU may not be 'FONDA' of supporting a case before the Supreme Court...because you may know yourself...and know that YOU will not defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...in the event the corrupt Supremes decide you have no right to own them.
Unless and UNTIL proven diferently...do NOT spead your own fear onto others.
quote:I would, however, like your opinion on the NRA's attempt to de-rail the D.C lawsuit.
Maybe I missed something here... is there evidence that the NRA is actively trying to derail the D.C. lawsuit?
I am an NRA member, but I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I know what the NRA is about. I've seen them sabotage us in the past. But I haven't seen them try to screw up this one yet. In fact, they were the first to send me an e-mail alert lauding the decision. If anybody has been lukewarm about the D.C. case it is the JPFO.
I am sorry to report that the NRA is 100% behind the legislation that will derail the SCOTUS challenge:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2814
I am sorry to report that the NRA is 100% behind the legislation that will derail the SCOTUS challenge:
Stand by.....An NRA apologist will be along shortly to explain to us that sabataging a 2nd Ammendment case (or ensuring that it is a loser) is the best thing for all of us.
After all, without the NRA protecting us we're a bunch of sniveling cowards.....