Comments on: The Soliciter General’s Arguments http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:20:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20560 Sebastian Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:39:31 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20560 Matt... please see Alan Gura's comments posted <a href="http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/alan-gura-on-the-mg-issue/" rel="nofollow">here</a> Matt… please see Alan Gura’s comments posted here

]]> By: Matt Wright http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20557 Matt Wright Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:00:54 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20557 Gura totally dropped the ball on machine guns. If the point of a militia is to a defend the citizens against invasion or tyrannical government, and if that citizenry is expected to make up the members of that militia, how can a machine gun ban be constitutional. How can a militia of rifles and handguns and shotguns defend itself against an army with all the modern weapons? It would be a wipeout. There would be no point to the militia. And he also made the point that machine guns are not common. Well, with the 86 Ban noone can afford them. Have you ever priced a machine gun? Anywher from 10,000 on up? How many families can afford a machine gun? Well less than one percent of our population. And if you try to make one, you could get 20 years if the batf finds out. The reason they are not more common is because they are legislatively prohibited, thus making the cost unobtainable to most americans. Gura made a dumb argument. Gura totally dropped the ball on machine guns. If the point of a militia is to a defend the citizens against invasion or tyrannical government, and if that citizenry is expected to make up the members of that militia, how can a machine gun ban be constitutional.

How can a militia of rifles and handguns and shotguns defend itself against an army with all the modern weapons? It would be a wipeout. There would be no point to the militia.

And he also made the point that machine guns are not common. Well, with the 86 Ban noone can afford them. Have you ever priced a machine gun? Anywher from 10,000 on up? How many families can afford a machine gun? Well less than one percent of our population.

And if you try to make one, you could get 20 years if the batf finds out.

The reason they are not more common is because they are legislatively prohibited, thus making the cost unobtainable to most americans.

Gura made a dumb argument.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20469 Sebastian Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:24:35 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20469 Sadly, there's no power that be which controls all this. It's just what would be ideal. Probably not what we'll end up getting. Sadly, there’s no power that be which controls all this. It’s just what would be ideal. Probably not what we’ll end up getting.

]]> By: SteVe http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20467 SteVe Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:07:32 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20467 Excellent plan of attack Sebastian. Please submit it to the powers that be for future planning & implementation. Assuming, of course, that we get the limited positive ruling we're hoping for. Excellent plan of attack Sebastian. Please submit it to the powers that be for future planning & implementation. Assuming, of course, that we get the limited positive ruling we’re hoping for.

]]> By: Mike M. http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20447 Mike M. Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:12:57 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20447 I'm guessing we get an individual rights ruling that allows certain restrictions. I can't see any ruling that removes restrictions on felons and such owning arms, as felons have other rights restricted (voting, association with other felons come to mind). I'm unsure how the machine gun issue might come down. It's difficult to rule that you can't restrict one class of gun while restricting another, when both are in common use by the military. I understand Gura not wanting to push the machine gun issue, but I feel he should have avoided it altogether by claiming his client's right to own a machine gun was beyond the bounds of his case. His argument that they're not in common use is faulty; they've been regulated since 1934 and banned since 1986, so of COURSE they're not in common use. I need to read the trascripts again, because it seemed to me that Scalia was dubious of the MG ban. I’m guessing we get an individual rights ruling that allows certain restrictions. I can’t see any ruling that removes restrictions on felons and such owning arms, as felons have other rights restricted (voting, association with other felons come to mind). I’m unsure how the machine gun issue might come down. It’s difficult to rule that you can’t restrict one class of gun while restricting another, when both are in common use by the military. I understand Gura not wanting to push the machine gun issue, but I feel he should have avoided it altogether by claiming his client’s right to own a machine gun was beyond the bounds of his case. His argument that they’re not in common use is faulty; they’ve been regulated since 1934 and banned since 1986, so of COURSE they’re not in common use. I need to read the trascripts again, because it seemed to me that Scalia was dubious of the MG ban.

]]> By: FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Semi-live Heller Oral Argument Coverage http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20443 FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Semi-live Heller Oral Argument Coverage Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:57:31 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20443 [...] The Solicter General’s Arguments: Clement spent most of the time defending the individual rights position, and considerably less time defending an intermediate standard of scrutiny. He was actually quite good, I thought, at arguing for the individual rights interpretation, and stated that he actually believed there was no way to distinguish machine guns from arms protected by the second amendment. [...] [...] The Solicter General’s Arguments: Clement spent most of the time defending the individual rights position, and considerably less time defending an intermediate standard of scrutiny. He was actually quite good, I thought, at arguing for the individual rights interpretation, and stated that he actually believed there was no way to distinguish machine guns from arms protected by the second amendment. [...]

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20438 Ian Argent Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:30:01 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20438 I guess I shoulda said we were still in handgun ban territory. (Don't talk to me about NJ's scheme - I'm still trying to decide if I want to start saving for a gun or not, given where I live) I guess I shoulda said we were still in handgun ban territory. (Don’t talk to me about NJ’s scheme – I’m still trying to decide if I want to start saving for a gun or not, given where I live)

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20437 Sebastian Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:28:17 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20437 DC's ban first. Then chicago's ban. Go for restrictive licensing schemes next. First the Sullivan Act, then Massachusett's licensing system, which is may issue for handguns. Then New Jersey's Shall Issue in Law only licensing scheme, which is in practice shall issue when we feel like it, and not a moment sooner, unless you get a lawyer, and even then we'll drag our feet... etc. After that, try to get rid of a restrictive "assault weapons" ban. It's only when you have all that crap sown up that you want to go after carry issues. And only after that do you go after machine guns. Of course, it's not going to happen how we want. Someone's going to take a machine gun ban forward and lose. DC’s ban first. Then chicago’s ban. Go for restrictive licensing schemes next. First the Sullivan Act, then Massachusett’s licensing system, which is may issue for handguns. Then New Jersey’s Shall Issue in Law only licensing scheme, which is in practice shall issue when we feel like it, and not a moment sooner, unless you get a lawyer, and even then we’ll drag our feet… etc. After that, try to get rid of a restrictive “assault weapons” ban. It’s only when you have all that crap sown up that you want to go after carry issues. And only after that do you go after machine guns.

Of course, it’s not going to happen how we want. Someone’s going to take a machine gun ban forward and lose.

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20436 Ian Argent Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:25:49 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20436 Handguns first, then shall-issue (probably has a pretty decent chance based on the justices views in argument), then the hughes amendment. Doubt NFA '34 will go away - not being, you know, a ban. Other things that probably won't go away - licenses for carry, background checks for purchase. Even with a Strict Scrutiny standard. IMHO, and YMMV. Handguns first, then shall-issue (probably has a pretty decent chance based on the justices views in argument), then the hughes amendment. Doubt NFA ’34 will go away – not being, you know, a ban.

Other things that probably won’t go away – licenses for carry, background checks for purchase. Even with a Strict Scrutiny standard. IMHO, and YMMV.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20435 Sebastian Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:18:28 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/18/the-soliciter-generals-arguments/#comment-20435 My understanding is, if a law is declared unconstitutional, it's like the law never existed. Anyone who is in prison based on that law gets let go. It's also not just having the perfect team, it's having the right timing. We don't want to go after the machine gun issue unless the court doesn't have much wiggle room to rule against us. <i>Hopefully</i> we won't get shut out at this stage, but I'm concerned about that given all the attention that was paid to machine guns in the oral arguments. My understanding is, if a law is declared unconstitutional, it’s like the law never existed. Anyone who is in prison based on that law gets let go.

It’s also not just having the perfect team, it’s having the right timing. We don’t want to go after the machine gun issue unless the court doesn’t have much wiggle room to rule against us. Hopefully we won’t get shut out at this stage, but I’m concerned about that given all the attention that was paid to machine guns in the oral arguments.

]]>