Heller for CA

[germanbock]

Any day now for the Heller case. Does any one know what it will do for CA. Being in a very constricted state, what doors will open for me as a CA resident?

[Mooseman684]

That is a question I doubt anyone can answer at this point....
Rich

[GlockMeister]

I couldn't begin to speculate, but you'd think some of California's laws would then also have to be deemed unconstitutional as well? I wouldn't go holding my breath that's for sure.

[Cyrano]

It all depends on how the Supreme Court rules. (The smart money says Roberts is going to write this decision himself and get his bit of judicial immortality, whichever way it goes.) I see three possibilities, given the way the orals were done and the questions asked by the justices and the assertions made by them.

First, they could uphold the DC gun ban. This would be very bad news for gun owners across the country, for it would open the door for additional gun bans at all levels. it could, in theory, make it impossible to own any kind of a gun. Possibility: unlikely. Six of the nine justices landed on the lawyer representing DC with hobnailed boots. Only two, Breyer and Stevens, seemed to support DC's position; and you can never tell with Thomas because he never asks questions during oral arguments.

Or, the Supreme Court could declare that any restrictions on what the citizens may own, keep around in a ready-use status, carry and use are unconstitutional. This would have the effect at the very least of opening the door for suits by citizen to overturn gun ban laws like DC's and the Sullivan Law in New York City; and for citizens to bring suit against state governments like Wisconsin's that ban private pistol ownership by fiat. Possibility: unlikely. Roberts is well aware of the hysteria that might ensue from the Brady Bunch and their fellow-travelers and the liberal media should that ruling go down. He's also aware that there are plenty of stupid people out there that think such a ruling would give them a license to kill. The chances of such a ruling are somewhere between slim and none.

Then there is the possibility that I think will be what we get. The Roberts Court will rule that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the citizens, not of the State; that the State has no right to pass a law depriving citizens of that right; but that based on current practices across the country, the states may require citizens to obtain permits before they may own and/or carry certain types of firearms. This will have the effect of preserving the Machine Gun Control Act of 1934, the National Firearms Act of 1938, GCA 68 and Bush the Elder's 1989 executive order concerning types of guns not allowed to be imported. "Machine guns" were very much on the Court's mind during oral arguments, but the Court did not define what "machine gun" means.

My take on it was the Court didn't want citizens owning full-auto, crew-served weapons like the Ma Deuce, the MG-42 and artillery pieces, as the Federalist Papers differentiate between smallarms used by ordinary people and field guns (cannon) used by the Army. But the questions the justices asked both sides on "machine guns" were sufficiently ambiguous that they could be construed to mean no full-auto smallarms in private hands; in other words, no full auto rifles like the unaltered CETMEs and FALs and G3s, no M-2 Carbines or military AK-47s and M-16s, no BARS, no submachine guns, in the hands of private citizens.

This would have little to no practical affect on 99.9% of all gun owners. In 40 years, I have met exactly one shooter who owned a full-auto firearm - a man who inherited a M1927A1 Thompson from his great-uncle. Even the Class 01 FFL dealers I know don't own them.

What we need to worry about is if the dangerous phrase "reasonable restrictions" appears in the ruling. That deadly wording would open the door for the Brady Bunch and others who would deprive us of a Constitutional right to have the theory of freedom of gun ownership but the practice of making it impossible to get the permits to own guns. Even if Roberts hands own a ruling that overturns DC's antigun law, opening the door to restrictions would mean we won the battle but lost the war. Much will depend on how much weight the Court gives to the phrase, "...the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Grammatically, 'shall not' is an absolute. It's a slammed door, a stop sign, an adamantium wall. But that doesn't guarantee the Court will pay attention to that.

I suspect Roberts is trying to write a decision that overturns a plainly unconstitutional law while preserving the status quo as far as possbile, without angering 85 million American gun owners enough that they will march on Washington and lynch every lawmaker, justice and senior bureaucrat they can find in a Second American Revolution. It is a daunting challenge, to say the least.

[GlockMeister]

I heard the other day on the news, when they were talking what might be next for the Hildabeast. One thing mentioned was Governor of New York. One other thing mentioned was something I couldn't imagine, would never want and would be scared to see happen, this was become a Supreme court Judge. Any idea what that could/would mean for gun owners. Just what we'd need, another anti-gunner in the Supreme court. She definately couldn't and probably wouldn't put the country or Constitution first. Her own needs,wants and agenda, most definately I think she would. I DON'T TRUST HER.

[Mooseman684]

Originally the Machine Gun Act as well as Drug laws were all Un-Constitutional
Until the Government pulled out the "Interstate Commerce Act"...Effectively skirting the Constitutional Rights of Citizens. The actual Good thing about "Heller" is that it has Nothing to do with Interstate Commerce !!!

If you look at the 2003 case, Stewart Vs. The United States, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Originally ruled that Possession of a "Homemade Machine Gun" was Not regulatable By the Federal Government under the Interstate Commerce Clause...It was Later Overturned ( BATFE was Having a Cow after the Original ruling !)
Rich

[germanbock]

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

I heard the other day on the news, when they were talking what might be next for the Hildabeast. One thing mentioned was Governor of New York. One other thing mentioned was something I couldn't imagine, would never want and would be scared to see happen, this was become a Supreme court Judge. Any idea what that could/would mean for gun owners. Just what we'd need, another anti-gunner in the Supreme court. She definately couldn't and probably wouldn't put the country or Constitution first. Her own needs,wants and agenda, most definately I think she would. I DON'T TRUST HER.

Who is Hildabeast? Is this person a potential Supreme Court Justice replacement?

In regards to the election in November for the White House, do we know how many Supreme Court Justices would be willing to stand down if Obama is elected? How many justices could he potentially replace?

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by GlockMeister

I heard the other day on the news, when they were talking what might be next for the Hildabeast. One thing mentioned was Governor of New York. One other thing mentioned was something I couldn't imagine, would never want and would be scared to see happen, this was become a Supreme Court Judge.

Glock, old son, I don't think you have to worry too much about Slick Hillary being named to the Supreme Court. As was demonstrated with the Harriet Meirs nomination, even if a party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, the Senate won't hold still for an unqualified nominee to be named to the highest court in the land. They want nominees with solid track records as judges and preferably as respected case-arguing attorneys as well. I think of them as Thurgood Marshall types.

Apply that yardstick to Slick Hillary and she comes up way, way short. She has never been on the bench and from what I know of her Arkansas legal career, was more of a corporate attorney than an Allan Shore, Denny Crane or Sam McCoy who could duke it out in the trenches with the opposite side in a courtroom. She's a paper-shuffler, not a brilliant legal mind in the tradition of the British barrister.

Besides, the only instance I can recall of a President or presidential candidate making it onto the Court is William Howard Taft, who long after he served as President was named Chief Justice by Warren G. Harding. (It was the achievement of his lifelong dream; he'd never really wanted to be President.) And he was the man who reorganized the way the Supreme Court chooses which cases to hear; persuaded the government to build the Supreme Court building; and solidified the position of the judiciary as the separate and equally important third leg of the tripod of American government.

Compared to Taft, how pathetic does Slick Hillary look? Do you actually think any President would nominate her to the highest court in the land? Or that the Senate would approve that nomiantion?

[Girlgun]

wow Cyrano, I am impressed. I learned more from your last two posts than the news hour...