Interesting Article on D.C. v. Heller

[DrMark]

I haven't seen this posted here, but I found it very interesting. Too long to post it all, so I provided a link. Enjoy.


How the Second Amendment Was Restored
The inside story of how a gang of libertarian lawyers made constitutional history

by Brian Doherty
December 2008, Reason Magazine, Print Edition

http://reason.com/news/show/129991.html

Mark

[FirstSpear]

Nice find, thanks.

[Nathan_Bell]

Nice find.

Couple books published the past few years claiming that the NRA has become a big business all of its own, more interested in preserving its place as the "foremost protector of the second amendment in the US" and pulling down all of those membership dollars and endowments rather than actually doing anything to protect and advance the 2A.
After their behavior RE Heller et al and a couple other issues, I am starting to believe at least a few of the charges leveled by those books are accurate.

[g5m]

Good article.

[VA_Dinger]

That is a very interesting article.

It certainly educated me about the case. I for one assumed the N.R.A. was the force behind the whole thing. I find it shocking they were not, and even tried to scuttle the whole case.

The N.R.A seems to have no problem giving off the impression they were backers of the case but that's after the victory.

[rubberneck]

The N.R.A seems to have no problem giving off the impression they were backers of the case but that's after the victory.

"Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan". --Count Galeazzo Ciano

One of the reasons why I left the NRA two years ago was because I had come to the conclusion that the leadership of the NRA was more interested in keeping their cushy jobs than actually slaying the dragon. The Heller case is a perfect example of the NRA not being interested in participating in a landmark case. If they had their way we would never have had Keller and they would still have had their boogey man, and more importantly, their cash flow. It infuriates me to no end that now they are trying to wrap themselves up in the Keller decision as if they were the ones who had been behind it from the start.

[heh2k]

The thing about the Heller case was that was a gamble. There was a chance they would rule that it WASN'T an individual right, which would've been disastrous. It would, though, force the court to rule it an individual right or else explain why one amendment applies not to individuals, while the others do. The court was not going to make full auto, real military small arms, legal for everyone. That's too scary for them (or any politicians). The Heller lawyers had to fashion an argument to preserve Miller (which the court would never overturn) while also asserting an individual right to non-FA arms. The way the court (or at least the one justice that I read - Saclia, I think) justified its ruling was through the circular logic of what arms are "common use". Since FA guns are rare, they're not common,, therefore aren't cover by the 2nd amendment. Obviously complete BS, but the supreme court always tries to minimize its effect on society and make the most narrow rulings possible.

I'm quite disappointed by the ruling. I want to see Miller overturned completely. People now are not equal under law. The government does not trust you to get a few more rounds per trigger pull, as if that will save lives. This country is full of people willing to comprise others' rights for tiny marginal increases in their own safety. It's sickening.

[BVickery]

Heller is a crucial first step. I wish it was more, but first and formost SCOTUS defined the 2nd Amendment as pertaining to us, the people and NOT the militia that is commonly trumped by anti-gunners. From what I have read of the decision the case was not about the parts people complain about (defining what is reasonable restrictions etc), it was about defining what the 2nd Amendment means as far as wording and striking down total bans such as DC, Chicago et al.

SCOTUS only decides on the case at hand and what is brought before them, not the entire kit and caboodle that is gun rights.

Again, Heller is the first step, it is now up to us to make sure GOA, NRA etc keep up the pressure.

[Iraqgunz]

Two other cases that I believe that are also significant yet overlooked are;

U.S v. Emerson and U.S v. Small. In the first case Emerson was indicted for being in possession of a firearm while the subject of a restraining order. The 5th Circuit agreed that his rights under the 2nd and 5th Amendments were violated.

In the second case the SCOTUS ruled that a felony conviction in a foreign court does not meet the definition of "any court" as it pertains to some of the questions on the Form 4473. Though the court did not directly address the 2nd Amendment issue, it did in my opinion re-affrim that there is an individual right to bear arms.

Just my 386 Fils on the subject.

[bigez1]

I have always felt the NRA is about preserving itself as really being opposed to gun laws. I may be wrong but its the what my gut tells me. If the SC rules that all gun laws were null and void and the 2nd amendment is an individual right that could not be infridged there would be no need for an NRA and the NRA fat cats would have to get real jobs. As long as guns laws are being passed there is money to be made half heartedly fighting them.