SayUncle talks about how DC is digging its own grave.Â To my mind, it’s not necessarily a gift to us that they are being obstinate, but a problem.Â NRA needs to push Congress to set The District’s gun laws for them, and preempt city council from regulating firearms entirely.Â We don’t want to be in a situation where we have a constant back and forth in the courts until eventually DC comes up with a regulation The Court will accept.Â The next step should be going after the incorporation angle, using bans and regulations that are similar to Washington D.C.
12 thoughts on “Not a Gift”
The fact that their proposed regulations to comply are so ridiculous can only help.
I think when you’re going after incorporation, you want the judges to not have a whole lot of idea exactly what they are incorporating. In other words, you don’t want second amendment interpretations getting too specific. We have a majority on what exists now. We don’t need ancillary issues jeopardizing incorporation.
Did anybody see what Mayor Fenty said on TV today in reaction to the Heller decision? I was watching Fox News when I heard him say that full-automatic and SEMI-AUTOMATIC handguns would continue to be illegal in DC, and that all other guns in DC would still have to be registered to be legal.
Does this mean now that only single-shot handguns like the Thompson/Center Arms Contender are legal to own in DC? Would DC consider a double-action revolver to be semi-automatic, and thereby illegal, according to what Mayor Fenty said?
Or, could this just be another case of another big city, gun-hating, and far-left liberal politician who’s just rather ignorant on guns in general?
yeah i heard that too… i cannot fathom that he actually meant what he said…
“To my mind, itâ€™s not necessarily a gift to us that they are being obstinate, but a problem. NRA needs to push Congress to set The Districtâ€™s gun laws for them, and preempt city council from regulating firearms entirely. ”
Now seeing as we have a pro 2nd amendment circuit court in said jurisdiction just why would see this as a problem ? . If DC screws up now we at the least are likely to come out with favorable case law , and i just hope they are stupid enough to appeal again . The SCOUS denied nothing we all agreed with , and in fact as you read the majority opinion left open to further gains . If we are going to challenge/ clarify points of a SCOUS opinion , well i would just as soon do it in DC as anywhere today . Today is HUGE we have thrown out storage requirements that make weapons non operable , we now have a recognized right to a handgun , and over ( IMHO ) that all self defense is a legal use that we have the right to own a gun for nation wide . Quoting this decision may well open ” shall retreat ” states to legitimate defense of home and self . In the best of all worlds the SCOUS would have broadly decided on the 2nd up to and including of disposing miller as the travisty it was with only one side represented . However they decided a few issues , and due to verbage of the opinion left more open to further judicial opinion on a case by case basis . I really like the ” common useage ” phrase to kick the door open to protect all semis , and possibly force a re open of the atf regestry .
Because you have more hostile courts that will need to be gone through to get incorporation. Let’s go with that while this is all still fresh, and not risk that further defining scope is going to jeopardize getting incorporation. If we don’t get incorporation, the second amendment doesn’t mean much.
The incorporation issue will be direct at Chicago. We need someone who knows Illinois courts and judges to see if we have favorable Illinois District, Circuit and State Supreme CT judges to push this forward. This may be filed in state courts and not federal courts.
Illinois itself has over 50 % of the counties with a vehement second amendment statement. The rest of the state is very pro 2A. Check with Dave Hardy he may know the analysis of the judges.
About DC I agree that Congress should decide. But Congress is under Pelosi rule and she would never loosen any gun regulation. So best to file suit immediately against DC for the licensing and wriiten exam nonsense. Also lets trash the idea they can restrict to one a month. All of that violate the purpose of 2A. IE: can not require a right to need a permit to exercise.
Licensing even the ATF shies away. Lets get that through that to Congress and parallel tract in DC federal court. We have a good chance that the Circiuit Ct will agree and then that will be trashed.
The big reason that this case was done in DC was 1) this was a total ban 2) under Federal jurisdiction. The Circuit Ct had no precedent for collective right. The Circuit Ct has had 2 Republican administrations nominating judges. Also many Supreme CT nominees come from the Circuit Ct.
We need a FFL to locate in DC to open shop. Hopefully some enterprising person has been planning fo rthis and already has a lease. Due to 1968 act residents of DC can’t get handguns from VA.
“Because you have more hostile courts that will need to be gone through to get incorporation. Letâ€™s go with that while this is all still fresh, and not risk that further defining scope is going to jeopardize getting incorporation. If we donâ€™t get incorporation, the second amendment doesnâ€™t mean much.”
Ok i am lost here . First off i dont understand incorporation, as the word is used . Second off i am not sure at all i agree with the thought of a ” hostile court ” . Heller won case on a 4-3 base , and each case under this will likely be as narrow when it is brought . I just dont honestly understand the incorporation verbiage There was nothing ( imho ) incorporated into this SCOUS opinion . However the way it was written it leaves open further challenges as they come . We now have a recognized right that we did not have this morning when we got up ( on the recognized side ). The wording of the opinion is not all i would have liked to seen , however it was on our side overall . IMHO the opinion as written did more for us than we realize on first reading . Yes it is back to court to define both scope and scrutiny of the right . However it is now an enumerated right to argue over .
2 thoughts come to mind when contemplating Fenty’s comments…
A right delayed is a right denied. -MLK
Let my people go. -Moses
Incorporation means that the second amendment is made to apply to the states, as with the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth. Without the Supreme Court ruling that it applies to the states, the ruling only has effect on the federal government, not the states. Incorporation was not an issue here, since DC is entirely under the control of the federal government.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only enforceable against the federal government. You couldn’t, for example, sue a state government for violation of your First Amendment rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment, though, provided that states could not make laws “abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens” of the United States. Some argued that this language made the entire Bill of Rights enforceable against the states. Unfortunately they lost the argument, and the Supreme Court adopted a doctrine known as “selective incorporation”. Under this doctrine, we don’t really know whether a provision of the Bill of Rights is enforceable against state governments until someone brings litigation; at that point, the Court can choose to “incorporate” that right, and make it effective against state governments as well as the federal government.
Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, but not all of them. For example, your right to a jury trial in civil litigation hasn’t been incorporated; states can give you a jury, but aren’t required to do so. Likewise, your right to be charged by a grand jury hasn’t been incorporated. States are free to use other procedural mechanisms for charging you with a crime.
And since the Court just today decided that, yes, Virginia, the Second Amendment really does protect an individual right that’s enforceable against the federal government, it hasn’t yet weighed in on the question of whether it’s “incorporated”, and thus enforceable against state governments.
Hope that clears things up.
Comments are closed.