My link

 

HELLER II in Court:

 

MONDAY MORNING November 15, 2010

 

Case:

10-7036 Document: 1241254

 

Filed:

04/22/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

 

The SHORT Version

of the issues in the HELLER II case before the Appellate Court & being heard on Monday, 19 Nov. 2010 is as follows:

 

1)

Whether the DC court should have applied STRICT SCRUTINY to determine validity of the DC GUN REGISTRATION Act.

 

2)

Whether DC GUN REGISTRATION violates the Second Amendment.

 

3)

Whether the "ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN violates the Second Amendment.

 

4)

Whether the "LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE" BAN violates the Second Amendment.

 

5)

Whether the "ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN and

the "LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE" BAN

are even authorized by D.C. Code § 1-303.43.

##

throw short barrel rifle in there and I am excited.. lol

 

just kidding.. good link..

3)

Whether the "ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN violates the Second Amendment.

 

4)

Whether the "LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE" BAN violates the Second Amendment.

 

The justices stated in Heller that the government cannot ban "arms in common use" and with ~45 states having no laws at all against semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines, and with millions of such guns and accessories sold and an entire giant industry built around it, I would be incredibly surprised if the court does not rule that these bans are unconstitutional.

So if they're found in violation we should be able to get ours tossed out?

So if they're found in violation we should be able to get ours tossed out?

 

This is NJ. Nothing will get thrown out until someone takes it all the way back to SCOTUS.

 

This is NJ. Nothing will get thrown out until someone takes it all the way back to SCOTUS.

 

 

Well said.

This is NJ. Nothing will get thrown out until someone takes it all the way back to SCOTUS.

 

True, and that will take another ten years

Better hope nothing happens to the five common sense justices.

So if they're found in violation we should be able to get ours tossed out?

 

Your best bet is to hope for reincarnation, and do a deep past life hypnosis session to recall where you stashed your guns from your last life, cause it will take that long for anything to be rolled back.

 

Heck, NJ doesn't even recognize McDonald!

Heller II wont affect Nj any more than Heller I did for one reason that everyone seems to forget. DC IS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION. They can rule whatever that want, and it WILL NOT AFFECT THE STATES, until someone files a lawsuit on THAT level. It's going to take an AWB McDonald for anything to change. YES... Heller II will lay the groundwork but it's not going to directly affect anything.... That is if it wins. If they LOSE it, you will see states like NJ/Ny Ca, and Il probably tigten their AWB's once they find they are safe from Court interference.

probably tigten their AWB's

 

 

do not want..

do not want..

**** Note**** If you are looking for Kittens and Rainbows, and Everything is going to go our way and we'll get all of our rights restored in 30 days or less...DONT READ THIS POST ********

 

 

 

Exactly....Unintended consequences. Everyone expects this to be a slam dunk in our favor, but it Honestly can go either way..especially when you read some of the comments by the Justices who DID vote our way on Heller v DC. Alan Gura took HUGE criticism at the time, and was even called a Traitor by some in the firearms community because he would not go after 922(o) and other unrelated issues such as AWB's because they had no bearing on the case at hand. Gure realized that if he HAD gone beyond the scope of the precise issue which was the focus, the outright Ban of handguns in the District, he would have LOST the case, even WITH Alito, Thomas and Scalia firmly on our side. Roberts said outright that if NFA was brought into it it would be a loser case. So Gura did the RIGHT thing, he concentrated on his CLient's needs, and got SCOTUS to affirm that the RKBA was a FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL Right..for the first time since the Constitution was adopted. That opened the doors for McDonals, which Re-affirmed that on the Sub-Federal level. The current situation when it comes to gun laws didnt happen overnight..it's taken decades to get to this point. To expect to have EVERYTHING reversed in one fell swoop is unrealistic at best. Incrementalism has gotten us here, to use a cliche, getting us out will take the same method as eating an Elephant. One Bite at a time.

Well, while most of the NJ Supreme court is in jeopardy of being replaced, it would be a good time for a lawsuit before they're nominations are up. (in my opinion)

I agree to have everything in one foul swoop changed is not going to happen from any court case.

 

I'm certainly not a legal expert, but wasn't the point of McDonald to clarify that 2A DOES apply to states and lower Gov. and not just the fed Gov.

Heller II is an attempt to clarify just what "reasonable gun control" is, as was allowed in Heller I.

 

The justices could have easily done that in McDonald but didn't seem to want to dive in that deep - they could have spared us all ten years of litigation.

I agree to have everything in one foul swoop changed is not going to happen from any court case.

 

I'm certainly not a legal expert, but wasn't the point of McDonald to clarify that 2A DOES apply to states and lower Gov. and not just the fed Gov.

Heller II is an attempt to clarify just what "reasonable gun control" is, as was allowed in Heller I.

 

The justices could have easily done that in McDonald but didn't seem to want to dive in that deep - they could have spared us all ten years of litigation.

Yes, Mcdonald Extended the Decision in heller to Include the states. The Justices SPECIFICALLY did not define what "Reasonable" meant, because again, the case was to determine a SPECIFIC ISSUE, to wit, the Constitutionality, or lack thereof of a total ban like DC and Chicago had. The Justices will not allow the discussion of these cases to stray outside those lines, Which will mean it will take time to turn thing sback. that said, Doing it that way, case by case, decision by decision is actually better for us in the long run, even if it doesnt seem so in the short. Think Chess as opposed to Checkers. (This is going to delve into Politics for a Bit and I Apologize Mak, but it IS germane to this issue) As screwed up as the current POUTS is, there is still no REAl Garuntee that he will be replaced by a Republican in 2012. Especially if the RNC insists on choosing tired old reruns as their candidates. While Alito, Roberts and Thomas are Relatively young, Kennedy and Scalia are not. All it takes is ONE of them to leave for some reason, and the entire tone of the court will be dependant on the White House. When you have large, sweeping decisions, all it takes os ONE case to overturn it. Whereas, if something like the RKBA is defined over a dozen or so cases, the gains you make can be eroded far less easily. "Reasonable" is a relative term..and having a set definition for it makes me uncomfortable, especially considering WHO might be the person or persons deciding. You tell me, Who would you rather see making that call?? Alito and Scalia, or Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor?

Yes, Mcdonald Extended the Decision in heller to Include the states. The Justices SPECIFICALLY did not define what "Reasonable" meant, because again, the case was to determine a SPECIFIC ISSUE, to wit, the Constitutionality, or lack thereof of a total ban like DC and Chicago had. The Justices will not allow the discussion of these cases to stray outside those lines, Which will mean it will take time to turn thing sback. that said, Doing it that way, case by case, decision by decision is actually better for us in the long run, even if it doesnt seem so in the short. Think Chess as opposed to Checkers. (This is going to delve into Politics for a Bit and I Apologize Mak, but it IS germane to this issue) As screwed up as the current POUTS is, there is still no REAl Garuntee that he will be replaced by a Republican in 2012. Especially if the RNC insists on choosing tired old reruns as their candidates. While Alito, Roberts and Thomas are Relatively young, Kennedy and Scalia are not. All it takes is ONE of them to leave for some reason, and the entire tone of the court will be dependant on the White House. When you have large, sweeping decisions, all it takes os ONE case to overturn it. Whereas, if something like the RKBA is defined over a dozen or so cases, the gains you make can be eroded far less easily. "Reasonable" is a relative term..and having a set definition for it makes me uncomfortable, especially considering WHO might be the person or persons deciding. You tell me, Who would you rather see making that call?? Alito and Scalia, or Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor?

Point well taken about multi rulings vs one ruling.

 

But like you said, we are only one justice away from getting nothing more, or worse yet going backwards.

Lets hope they can lay this out before SCOTUS changes for the worse.

Thank you for posting this, Obrams. I know sometimes I forget to follow up on things like this; it's good to know that I can follow it here thanks to you!

HELLER's HOT - WIRE

 

TUESDAY 11/16/10

 

. . . Monday's HELLER II hearing in the DC Circuit Court case focused mostly around 3 elements . . .

 

1.

Gun Registration - does it fall within the 1906 Fed.Regs for Usual & Reasonable regulation,

 

2.

If, since the Supreme Court declared Semi-auto handguns as

"in common use of the day,"

and are now legal in DC, and at the other end of the spectrum the controlled or regulated F/A are the Sawed Off Shotgun & Machine Gun,

WHY is the AR-15 or other assault weapons [which are merely a semi-auto pistol with a stock] considered Offensive instead of a Defensive F/A and be regulated or banned ?

 

3.

And Strict Scrutiny questions on multiple issues.