zefflyn
Registered. User.
HELLER DECISION -- DEEPER ANALYSIS
"Strictest Scrutiny" Found in the Fine Print
Many Other Assets Revealed After Study
Gura Takes Another Case
"Do NOT gratuitously yield ground on any points that may be debatable -- take the highest ground concerning what the Heller decision means, and make the antis fight uphill against you. You may be right despite your own doubts."
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
June 30, 2008
Sign up (or off) for future e-nnouncements mailto:info@gunlaws.com
FIRST, THREE NEWS ITEMS:
1.
June 26, 2008: "An 'outraged' Chicago Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.'s handgun ban as a 'frightening decision' and a "return to the days of the Wild West.'"
Adding salt to the wound, Chicago was immediately sued over its own tyrannical handgun ban and licensing tax scheme, by a coalition of pro-human-rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Quoting from the SAF announcement (saf.org):
"Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform," ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said. Under Chicago's gun law, firearms must be re-registered annually. Alan Gura, lead attorney in the Heller case, is in charge of this lawsuit.
"Each time," Gura said, "a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will be constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough."
He further noted that Chicago's bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often makes registration impossible. Failure to comply with the scheme means that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Some anti-rights advocates are reportedly happy because gun registration is being accepted as if it's a restoration of rights, which it is not.
Daley's "Wild West" comment refers to a bogus notion used by every anti-rights zealot in the country. It's usually used to resist carry-permit legislation, which has been proven to reduce crime, not revert society to the days of Dodge City. "Why let facts get in the way
of a good red-faced rant," said The Uninvited Ombudsman, to no one in particular. He added, "Registering honest gun owners lacks a crime-fighting component, and directs scarce funding in the wrong direction -- tracking the innocent." Criminals cannot be registered, due
to 5th Amendment self-incrimination rules. More here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
2.
I was going to do a lengthy review of news coverage of the decision, but it has been so biased, distorted, misleading and prejudicial I just don't have the stomach for it. Our local paper (Gannett's #2 rag, The Arizona Republic) put it below the fold, giving a daily change in the stock market more prominence. They ran the famously anti-rights Washington Post "news" which began, ran and ended with editorial comments and balderdash.
The McClatchy chain closed their completely conjectural Q&A approach by calling SAF, the second largest gun-rights group in the nation "small." Reuters, overlooking that the RKBA has been enshrined, exercised and respected for more than two centuries, called it new. It was dastardly.
3.
Against the hue and cry of gun-crazed journalists, clamoring post-Heller for an end to what they call "gun deaths," it's time to finally call a spade a spade. Gun deaths are largely war deaths – in the government-sponsored war on some drugs. Gang-banger murders are war
deaths in that war, and are not subject to phony "gun-control" measures. D.C.'s failed laws prove this. The American murder rate has major components that are demographic, geographic, and related to social and economic conditions, not a new design by Winchester, Colt or Glock. The anti-rights claims about gun deaths are as false as the now discredited myths from their Heller-case arguments.
The ugly underbelly of criminal shootings must be exposed. It must be disassociated from 100 million legitimate law-abiding gun owners. We can no longer stand by and allow journalists and their leaders, or misguided politicians, to place blame for failed social policies on cherished human rights that have kept this nation a shining beacon of freedom for more than two centuries.
WARNING:
The big hurdle, with Heller now in place, will be control of the court of popular opinion. National "news" media, lead by the clever and decidedly anti-rights Washington Post, will be bending over backwards to present any D.C. item that can be twisted to imply:
a) D.C. experienced a crime and it must be due to the bad Heller decision and its subsequent flood of permit applications,
b) exercise of your rights is hurting society,
c) politicians should reverse the trend by finding new ways to enact the old failed policies, and
d) you should elect Obama because he will fix everything with some spare change from his campaign.
--------
ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE HELLER DECISION
(In my haste to post an initial review of the Heller decision, many juicy points were overlooked. This was expected. With time to read and digest the opinion, some wonderful elements have emerged. Starting with some lighter fare):
June 26 was a great day for human rights and freedom and a terrible day for The New York Times. (The Times has promoted an anti-rights agenda for decades.)
Bogus anti-rights arguments we have endured for about four decades have had a stake driven through them. Collectivism, militia requirements, uselessness of sidearms, improper readings of 2A, revisionist history, rights-denial as a crime remedy, "the gun lobby lies about 2A," even "an individual right means you can own an atom bomb," all dead. Did I mention hoplophobia is irrational?
The human right to self defense has received unequivocal support. This is especially important since the U.N. does not recognize this right.
Criminals and crazies remain under strict legal controls, despite lunatic claims to the contrary.
Handguns are fully recognized as "the quintessential self-defense weapon."
Future efforts to deny these crucial civil rights will be severely chilled (though their advocates may be energized, as we would if we had lost).
The list of weapons useful for a militia -- armed citizens capable of being called up in an emergency to serve with their own weapons -- remains ambiguous. To wit:
Legal-eagle friends are confused, in disagreement and debating what the actual holdings are exactly, such as whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, and similar fine points. I take an expansive view and encourage rights advocates to do the same. Do NOT yield ground on any points in your preliminary positions -- take the highest ground concerning what the decision means, and make the antis fight uphill against you. Push the envelope in the direction of greater freedom. The finding of a specific enumerated right of course means other jurisdictions are affected even if the 14th Amendment isn't specifically invoked -- it doesn't need to be.
June 26 has been proposed as National Right to Keep and Bear Arms Day by Tom Liddy, author, talk show host, politician and son of G. Gordon Liddy.
The decision will provide cover for politicians, who can now reject anti-rights bills by saying their hands are tied by the individual-rights declarations in Heller. Obviously not all will, but many will be able to duck a thorny issue without alienating their constituencies, bolstering pro-rights efforts toward new bills and helping to stop bad bills.
--------
I just finished studying the decision, the dense legal text is not easy reading. Much of the commentary I've seen seems based on guesswork and emotion. It's better than we think, but still, the struggle goes on as it always will. Freedom is not a place you get to, it's a path you travel.
THE TRULY TREMENDOUS ADVANCE FOR RKBA:
The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).
This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed.
Coupled with the Court's destruction of a scrutiny scheme invented by Breyer in his dissent, 2A protection is now extra robust (but antis will continue their attacks). Seeking to justify the total-gun-bans-are-perfectly-OK school of thought (the one B. H. Obama supported until this decision came out and he immediately reversed himself), Justice Breyer proposed a brand new level of scrutiny, not just the familiar strict, intermediate or rational-basis levels (from highest to lowest). He invented a new low he calls "interest-balancing inquiry." The Court calls it a "judge empowering... freestanding" approach wholly without merit or precedent and dismisses it completely as a worthless subterfuge. p62
The decision works hard in many ways to preclude further abuses, to establish the primacy of the fundamental rights in the Second Amendment, to foreclose future mischief against the rights protected, and to take certain policy choices off the table -- like banning handguns for self defense at home -- regardless of how bad criminals are or how they do their dirty work. Government has other tools to fight crime, and has to use those. p64
Critics and anti-rights advocates are almost gleeful at the Court's acceptance of Mr. Heller's request for registration and a license to carry his gun in his own home, as long as the terms aren't arbitrary or capricious. Agreed this is a weak and unsavory intermediate step with
potential for abuse, while on the way to greater freedom than D.C. currently has. It has a very dangerous potential for abuse that will be exploited. Antis will try to imply that registration and licensing are more than OK, they are the new standard. This is completely false:
-- It is not a national requirement, it's a response to a specific request.
-- Heller's request applies specifically to his case, at home, in D.C., nto be acted upon by D.C. for its residents.
-- Because RKBA is now recognized as a "specific enumerated right" (a phrase you should start using), laws related to it will be subjected to stringent standards like those protecting freedom of speech, protection against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (among the most safeguarded rights we have).
-- Registration and a license to practice free speech would obviously never be permissible, so Mr. Heller's request should hold little sway, if any, outside the context of his "prayer" (the Court's word) for relief from the onerous disability he suffered as a D.C. resident. Anti-rights lawyers and legislators will try to argue otherwise, but the ammunition is piled high in the pro-rights arsenal. Our argument is compelling, do not yield. To wit again:
From the Counterintuitive Department: The antis are actually trumpeting our side -- People will want less restrictions! Gun bans will fall! Gun-free-zones will come under legal attack! And we're promoting their side for Pete's sake -- More licensing and registration is coming! Assault weapon bans are around the corner! The Court has put another nail in the gun-rights coffin! Be careful about turning a win into a loss, and giving voice to what the other side wants. Don't be a gloomsayer.
"Strictest Scrutiny" Found in the Fine Print
Many Other Assets Revealed After Study
Gura Takes Another Case
"Do NOT gratuitously yield ground on any points that may be debatable -- take the highest ground concerning what the Heller decision means, and make the antis fight uphill against you. You may be right despite your own doubts."
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
June 30, 2008
Sign up (or off) for future e-nnouncements mailto:info@gunlaws.com
FIRST, THREE NEWS ITEMS:
1.
June 26, 2008: "An 'outraged' Chicago Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.'s handgun ban as a 'frightening decision' and a "return to the days of the Wild West.'"
Adding salt to the wound, Chicago was immediately sued over its own tyrannical handgun ban and licensing tax scheme, by a coalition of pro-human-rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Quoting from the SAF announcement (saf.org):
"Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform," ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said. Under Chicago's gun law, firearms must be re-registered annually. Alan Gura, lead attorney in the Heller case, is in charge of this lawsuit.
"Each time," Gura said, "a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will be constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough."
He further noted that Chicago's bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often makes registration impossible. Failure to comply with the scheme means that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Some anti-rights advocates are reportedly happy because gun registration is being accepted as if it's a restoration of rights, which it is not.
Daley's "Wild West" comment refers to a bogus notion used by every anti-rights zealot in the country. It's usually used to resist carry-permit legislation, which has been proven to reduce crime, not revert society to the days of Dodge City. "Why let facts get in the way
of a good red-faced rant," said The Uninvited Ombudsman, to no one in particular. He added, "Registering honest gun owners lacks a crime-fighting component, and directs scarce funding in the wrong direction -- tracking the innocent." Criminals cannot be registered, due
to 5th Amendment self-incrimination rules. More here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
2.
I was going to do a lengthy review of news coverage of the decision, but it has been so biased, distorted, misleading and prejudicial I just don't have the stomach for it. Our local paper (Gannett's #2 rag, The Arizona Republic) put it below the fold, giving a daily change in the stock market more prominence. They ran the famously anti-rights Washington Post "news" which began, ran and ended with editorial comments and balderdash.
The McClatchy chain closed their completely conjectural Q&A approach by calling SAF, the second largest gun-rights group in the nation "small." Reuters, overlooking that the RKBA has been enshrined, exercised and respected for more than two centuries, called it new. It was dastardly.
3.
Against the hue and cry of gun-crazed journalists, clamoring post-Heller for an end to what they call "gun deaths," it's time to finally call a spade a spade. Gun deaths are largely war deaths – in the government-sponsored war on some drugs. Gang-banger murders are war
deaths in that war, and are not subject to phony "gun-control" measures. D.C.'s failed laws prove this. The American murder rate has major components that are demographic, geographic, and related to social and economic conditions, not a new design by Winchester, Colt or Glock. The anti-rights claims about gun deaths are as false as the now discredited myths from their Heller-case arguments.
The ugly underbelly of criminal shootings must be exposed. It must be disassociated from 100 million legitimate law-abiding gun owners. We can no longer stand by and allow journalists and their leaders, or misguided politicians, to place blame for failed social policies on cherished human rights that have kept this nation a shining beacon of freedom for more than two centuries.
WARNING:
The big hurdle, with Heller now in place, will be control of the court of popular opinion. National "news" media, lead by the clever and decidedly anti-rights Washington Post, will be bending over backwards to present any D.C. item that can be twisted to imply:
a) D.C. experienced a crime and it must be due to the bad Heller decision and its subsequent flood of permit applications,
b) exercise of your rights is hurting society,
c) politicians should reverse the trend by finding new ways to enact the old failed policies, and
d) you should elect Obama because he will fix everything with some spare change from his campaign.
--------
ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE HELLER DECISION
(In my haste to post an initial review of the Heller decision, many juicy points were overlooked. This was expected. With time to read and digest the opinion, some wonderful elements have emerged. Starting with some lighter fare):
June 26 was a great day for human rights and freedom and a terrible day for The New York Times. (The Times has promoted an anti-rights agenda for decades.)
Bogus anti-rights arguments we have endured for about four decades have had a stake driven through them. Collectivism, militia requirements, uselessness of sidearms, improper readings of 2A, revisionist history, rights-denial as a crime remedy, "the gun lobby lies about 2A," even "an individual right means you can own an atom bomb," all dead. Did I mention hoplophobia is irrational?
The human right to self defense has received unequivocal support. This is especially important since the U.N. does not recognize this right.
Criminals and crazies remain under strict legal controls, despite lunatic claims to the contrary.
Handguns are fully recognized as "the quintessential self-defense weapon."
Future efforts to deny these crucial civil rights will be severely chilled (though their advocates may be energized, as we would if we had lost).
The list of weapons useful for a militia -- armed citizens capable of being called up in an emergency to serve with their own weapons -- remains ambiguous. To wit:
Legal-eagle friends are confused, in disagreement and debating what the actual holdings are exactly, such as whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, and similar fine points. I take an expansive view and encourage rights advocates to do the same. Do NOT yield ground on any points in your preliminary positions -- take the highest ground concerning what the decision means, and make the antis fight uphill against you. Push the envelope in the direction of greater freedom. The finding of a specific enumerated right of course means other jurisdictions are affected even if the 14th Amendment isn't specifically invoked -- it doesn't need to be.
June 26 has been proposed as National Right to Keep and Bear Arms Day by Tom Liddy, author, talk show host, politician and son of G. Gordon Liddy.
The decision will provide cover for politicians, who can now reject anti-rights bills by saying their hands are tied by the individual-rights declarations in Heller. Obviously not all will, but many will be able to duck a thorny issue without alienating their constituencies, bolstering pro-rights efforts toward new bills and helping to stop bad bills.
--------
I just finished studying the decision, the dense legal text is not easy reading. Much of the commentary I've seen seems based on guesswork and emotion. It's better than we think, but still, the struggle goes on as it always will. Freedom is not a place you get to, it's a path you travel.
THE TRULY TREMENDOUS ADVANCE FOR RKBA:
The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).
This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed.
Coupled with the Court's destruction of a scrutiny scheme invented by Breyer in his dissent, 2A protection is now extra robust (but antis will continue their attacks). Seeking to justify the total-gun-bans-are-perfectly-OK school of thought (the one B. H. Obama supported until this decision came out and he immediately reversed himself), Justice Breyer proposed a brand new level of scrutiny, not just the familiar strict, intermediate or rational-basis levels (from highest to lowest). He invented a new low he calls "interest-balancing inquiry." The Court calls it a "judge empowering... freestanding" approach wholly without merit or precedent and dismisses it completely as a worthless subterfuge. p62
The decision works hard in many ways to preclude further abuses, to establish the primacy of the fundamental rights in the Second Amendment, to foreclose future mischief against the rights protected, and to take certain policy choices off the table -- like banning handguns for self defense at home -- regardless of how bad criminals are or how they do their dirty work. Government has other tools to fight crime, and has to use those. p64
Critics and anti-rights advocates are almost gleeful at the Court's acceptance of Mr. Heller's request for registration and a license to carry his gun in his own home, as long as the terms aren't arbitrary or capricious. Agreed this is a weak and unsavory intermediate step with
potential for abuse, while on the way to greater freedom than D.C. currently has. It has a very dangerous potential for abuse that will be exploited. Antis will try to imply that registration and licensing are more than OK, they are the new standard. This is completely false:
-- It is not a national requirement, it's a response to a specific request.
-- Heller's request applies specifically to his case, at home, in D.C., nto be acted upon by D.C. for its residents.
-- Because RKBA is now recognized as a "specific enumerated right" (a phrase you should start using), laws related to it will be subjected to stringent standards like those protecting freedom of speech, protection against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (among the most safeguarded rights we have).
-- Registration and a license to practice free speech would obviously never be permissible, so Mr. Heller's request should hold little sway, if any, outside the context of his "prayer" (the Court's word) for relief from the onerous disability he suffered as a D.C. resident. Anti-rights lawyers and legislators will try to argue otherwise, but the ammunition is piled high in the pro-rights arsenal. Our argument is compelling, do not yield. To wit again:
From the Counterintuitive Department: The antis are actually trumpeting our side -- People will want less restrictions! Gun bans will fall! Gun-free-zones will come under legal attack! And we're promoting their side for Pete's sake -- More licensing and registration is coming! Assault weapon bans are around the corner! The Court has put another nail in the gun-rights coffin! Be careful about turning a win into a loss, and giving voice to what the other side wants. Don't be a gloomsayer.
surprisingly, i was going to purchase a AK and NOT the MIA since its way cheaper then a M1A and for a odd reason...i like AKs....a lot
