Handguns At Home in DC~To Be heard This Week

[W7WV]

I just heard that the Supreme Court will hear the case about handgun ownership and the rights to keep a handgun at home in the Washington DC area this week.
I remember when SF banned handguns after the ex cop shot the mayor and another. Does anyone remember the Danny White Twinkies defense?
What a joke. As if it can be enforced.
I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. We will worry about your stupid rules violations later.
I would predict if they agreed and said that handgun ownership with guns at home does not apply to the right to bare arms that Washington DC could be in for some really big protests like they have not seen since the VietNam era.

[KC4RAN]

Big? Huge. Like, we-don't-want-to-be-part-of-the-US-anymore huge.

[W3MIV]

Heller was argued before the Supreme Court on 18 March.

[W7WV]

And the decision is expected this week.

[wa6ccw]

And the decision is expected this week.

Anxiously awaiting.

Let's hope that President Bush's quality SC appointees will lead the charge back to constitutional sanity.

It's a right of the individual - not a "collective" right of the states.

[K8ERV]

If they become legal, someone will find a way to tax it.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K9STH]

You already have to pay taxes when you purchase the gun, for ammunition, and so forth. Then there are the fees collected for concealed carry permits and for "licenses" in those cities where such is required.

Glen, K9STH

[W7WV]

AZ is open carry country.
No permit required here unless you want to conceal. Open carry discourages arguments :D
I guess if the jerks say we can't have guns at home here I have to carry all the time? :rolleyes:

[n1jdw]

In previous years we had too many silent majority sheep who were in the mainstream when the Clinton - Gore folks attempted to remove the 2nd amendment, while filing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.. They almost succeeded, which is the sad part. Just like our radio frequencies, we cannot afford to take a back seat when special interests aggressively try to put their selfishness before us. Even if you don't agree with gun ownership, or hunting, you need to respect the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens, who collect guns, and wish to defend their lives and homes. Law enforcement and the courts are overburdened with crime. In states, such as NJ, NY, MD, CA, and of course, the infamous D.C. area, which have shown a complete lack of concern for victim's rights, the violent criminals, who don't legally purchase guns or get concealed carry permits anyway, are having a field day!!

[KC9IUX]

Let's hope that President Bush's quality SC appointees will lead the charge back to constitutional sanity.

I wouldn't put too much hope in that.

Bush is no friend of the Constitution.

[W3MIV]

I wouldn't put too much hope in that.

Bush is no friend of the Constitution.

Very true. Bush's Solicitor General argued in favor of the DC law.

[W7WV]

Speaking of calling the cops~
Many years ago I was awakened to find two guys trying to enter our home by prying out the old crank out style windows.
Now they had to know that we were home with 2 cars, a truck and our RV in driveway.
Anyway, I threw open the door and one ran and I grabbed another and threw them into the wall with my 9mm at this chin.
I took him inside and sat him down. My wife had already called 911 to get a cop there.
He was young, about 18 and tried to defy me and said he was going to leave anyway and that I could not hold him. I told him if I missed my wife wouldn't and he noted that she was armed too.
The bottom line here is that we lived in a neighborhood that had been there at that point for some 30 years in a town of about 100k. It took the police a total of 45 minutes to get to my house and then I had to give the dispatcher directions so the officers could find my home.
Yep, that's what I want when I have someone at gunpoint that was coming into my occupied home with my wife and kids, a timely response.
Now, do you really think I care what the decision is this week? I would still have guns in my home just like they still do in DC and anywhere else they have tried to outlaw them.
Prove it.

[n0ov]

Speaking of calling the cops~
Many years ago I was awakened to find two guys trying to enter our home by prying out the old crank out style windows.
Now they had to know that we were home with 2 cars, a truck and our RV in driveway.
Anyway, I threw open the door and one ran and I grabbed another and threw them into the wall with my 9mm at this chin.
I took him inside and sat him down. My wife had already called 911 to get a cop there.
He was young, about 18 and tried to defy me and said he was going to leave anyway and that I could not hold him. I told him if I missed my wife wouldn't and he noted that she was armed too.
The bottom line here is that we lived in a neighborhood that had been there at that point for some 30 years in a town of about 100k. It took the police a total of 45 minutes to get to my house and then I had to give the dispatcher directions so the officers could find my home.
Yep, that's what I want when I have someone at gunpoint that was coming into my occupied home with my wife and kids, a timely response.
Now, do you really think I care what the decision is this week? I would still have guns in my home just like they still do in DC and anywhere else they have tried to outlaw them.
Prove it.

Well done. This is a proper example of using this tool properly.

[N4VGB]

I don't expect much from the Heller decison. It was filed in specific regards to the exact D.C. codes in question. It would appear that any ruling would only be in regards to those exact 3 D.C. municipal codes and have zero affect elsewhere. :confused:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf

[KB9BVN]

I don't expect much from the Heller decison. It was filed in specific regards to the exact D.C. codes in question. It would appear that any ruling would only be in regards to those exact 3 D.C. municipal codes and have zero affect elsewhere. :confused:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf

Never underestimate the ability of the gun grabbing leftie Obamaphiles to misinterpret a SCOTUS decision.

[N4VGB]

Never underestimate the ability of the gun grabbing leftie Obamaphiles to misinterpret a SCOTUS decision.

The filing specifically requests a ruling "limited to" the D.C. municipal codes stated.

The current SCOTUS isn't prone to "legislating from the bench" as others have been in the past.

A ruling against the D.C codes would open the door to other filings against other municipal codes, it could get interesting then. I think the court is going to take their time and word their ruling very carefully on this one.

[W3MIV]

The filing specifically requests a ruling "limited to" the D.C. municipal codes stated.

The current SCOTUS isn't prone to "legislating from the bench" as others have been in the past.

A ruling against the D.C codes would open the door to other filings against other municipal codes, it could get interesting then. I think the court is going to take their time and word their ruling very carefully on this one.

The "government," in the form of the Solicitor General, asked for the narrow ruling. Many other briefs were filed in support of a wider reading. Judging from the audio/transcipt of the arguments, I would not be willing to wager either way. I suspect, however, that the ruling will be that the "right to keep and bear arms" will be found to be an individual right, but that the government has a compelling interest in regulating the extent of that right -- just as is the case with your First-Amendment right of free speech, which is circumscribed by such compelling interests.

[K4GUN]

I don't expect much from the Heller decison. It was filed in specific regards to the exact D.C. codes in question. It would appear that any ruling would only be in regards to those exact 3 D.C. municipal codes and have zero affect elsewhere. :confused:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf


Read the lower court's ruling on this case. They did not throw out other statutes, but the wording they used was incredibly strong, direct and impossible to mis-interperate. That decision could have been used as the foundation for a huge number of suits to throw out other laws. That's how court decisinos like this work. They rule on one specific law, but the decision ends up affecting many others.

I am very anxious about this. When they argued at the SCOTUS, all sides seemed to be aware that the lower court's ruling opend the door to throwing out a huge number of laws, not the least of which is the 1934 NFA. That ruling is hanging on by a thread at this point.

[W3MIV]

I am very anxious about this. When they argued at the SCOTUS, all sides seemed to be aware that the lower court's ruling opend the door to throwing out a huge number of laws, not the least of which is the 1934 NFA. That ruling is hanging on by a thread at this point.

I do not understand the nature of your angst. What is it about this "huge number of laws" that might be "thrown out" that moistens your knickers?

[N4VGB]

Judging from the audio/transcipt of the arguments, I would not be willing to wager either way. I suspect, however, that the ruling will be that the "right to keep and bear arms" will be found to be an individual right, but that the government has a compelling interest in regulating the extent of that right


Let us hope so.

[K4GUN]

I do not understand the nature of your angst. What is it about this "huge number of laws" that might be "thrown out" that moistens your knickers?


Angst isn't the word. Anxious. At this point, its moot. If the lower court ruling were left standing without change, it would change the face of how guns are sold at a fundamental level.

In 1934, congress passed the NFA. The NFA makes it extremely difficult to own a machine gun, short barreled rifle or shotgun or a suppressor (incorrectly called silencers). In order to buy one of these firearms, a person must first comply with all state laws. If the state allows them to own the weapon (and many do), the person then must get the chief law enforcement agent in the person's city to sign off for permission to go forward. The potential buyer then submits finger prints, a picture and a check for $200 to the BATF. The BATF then takes as long as it likes to process a background check and once all that happens, the person can take possession of the NFA restricted firearm. You could not take the gun across state lines without permission from the BATF and you had to have the government issued stamp on hand at all times.

In 1968 importation of foreign machine guns was banned. Donesticly produced ones were still legal as long as they were registered under the above procedure. Then, in 1986, congress banned the sale of any new machine gun. Today, you can only buy a machine gun that was registered prior to 1986. You can still buy a new SBS, SBR or suppressor, but not a machine gun.

In the late 1930's a gangster named Miller challenged this law. He was a thug who was caught with an unregistered SBS. He appealed his conviction on 2nd amendment grounds. The government had two arguments at the time. The first was that the 2A only protected state's rights. The other was that an SBS wasn't useful to a "well regulated militia". Miller had no legal representation and died in jail before arguing his case.

The SCOTUS ruled that since nobody was able to show that an SBS was useful to a well regulated militia, that the conviction stood. They did NOT rule on the issue of a collective right. It has long been known that this ruling could be challenged by showing that a particular gun was useful to the military. Nobody did that because they were afraid of the other part of the decision that the court avoided.

Well, in the Heller case, the lower court refrenced all of this. They made it clear that they were ruling on the collective right portion of the decision. Taken together, all a person would have to do is show that an M16 was useful to a well regulated militia and presumably, the M16 would no longer fall under the NFA. That seems pretty easy and straight forward.

The anti-gun groups know this. They brought all of this up before the SCOTUS back in March. They talked a lot about machine guns, even though that wasn't part of the Heller case. They know exactly what will happen if the lower court ruling stands, which is why they had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Its heady stuff. There's more to it still. Many states will have to change their laws in order to comply with the ruling if it goes anything close to the lower court.

[W3MIV]

Angst isn't the word. Anxious. At this point, its moot. If the lower court ruling were left standing without change, it would change the face of how guns are sold at a fundamental level.

In 1934, congress passed the NFA. The NFA makes it extremely difficult to own a machine gun, short barreled rifle or shotgun or a suppressor (incorrectly called silencers). In order to buy one of these firearms, a person must first comply with all state laws. If the state allows them to own the weapon (and many do), the person then must get the chief law enforcement agent in the person's city to sign off for permission to go forward. The potential buyer then submits finger prints, a picture and a check for $200 to the BATF. The BATF then takes as long as it likes to process a background check and once all that happens, the person can take possession of the NFA restricted firearm. You could not take the gun across state lines without permission from the BATF and you had to have the government issued stamp on hand at all times.

In 1968 importation of foreign machine guns was banned. Donesticly produced ones were still legal as long as they were registered under the above procedure. Then, in 1986, congress banned the sale of any new machine gun. Today, you can only buy a machine gun that was registered prior to 1986. You can still buy a new SBS, SBR or suppressor, but not a machine gun.

In the late 1930's a gangster named Miller challenged this law. He was a thug who was caught with an unregistered SBS. He appealed his conviction on 2nd amendment grounds. The government had two arguments at the time. The first was that the 2A only protected state's rights. The other was that an SBS wasn't useful to a "well regulated militia". Miller had no legal representation and died in jail before arguing his case.

The SCOTUS ruled that since nobody was able to show that an SBS was useful to a well regulated militia, that the conviction stood. They did NOT rule on the issue of a collective right. It has long been known that this ruling could be challenged by showing that a particular gun was useful to the military. Nobody did that because they were afraid of the other part of the decision that the court avoided.

Well, in the Heller case, the lower court refrenced all of this. They made it clear that they were ruling on the collective right portion of the decision. Taken together, all a person would have to do is show that an M16 was useful to a well regulated militia and presumably, the M16 would no longer fall under the NFA. That seems pretty easy and straight forward.

The anti-gun groups know this. They brought all of this up before the SCOTUS back in March. They talked a lot about machine guns, even though that wasn't part of the Heller case. They know exactly what will happen if the lower court ruling stands, which is why they had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Its heady stuff. There's more to it still. Many states will have to change their laws in order to comply with the ruling if it goes anything close to the lower court.

I don't agree with much of that analysis.

I don't see how the Court can find that "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment differs materially from any other "right of the people," which the Court has always defined as an individual right, not a collective right. The anti-gun arguments citing the "militia clause" do so because they must do so to avoid the issue of an individual right, and that is why they consistently avoid the "right of the people" clause.

All of the arguments supporting the restrictions on machine guns (and any other chosen category) can still be supported under a clear determination that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and individual right. Just as Holmes famously pointed out that you do not have the freedom to cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, the state can assert that it has a compelling public interest in restricting the sale and use of machine guns. The issue with the DC law was that it prohibited, outright, the ownership of any handgun in DC. That is beyond the exercise of a reasonable restriction.

I think we will see a six-three decision in favor of an individual right.

[K5FH]

Just as Holmes famously pointed out that you do not have the freedom to cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, the state can assert that it has a compelling public interest in restricting the sale and use of machine guns.

Although I agree in principle, it's the practical application that worries me and my fellow gun owners.

I believe you are correct that the court is going to rely heavily on the concept of "compelling public interest" in whatever decision comes out of this case.

At this juncture I must necessarily invoke the infamous slippery slope argument, and I'm sure I will be reminded that this is not a "proper" debate tactic. Proper or not, the history of firearms legislation in this country is a textbook example of the slippery slope concept. What started out as "reasonable" restrictions ("reasonable" by whose definition?) became, in many cases, either outright or de facto bans on ownership or use. And all in the name of "compelling public interest."

It is "compelling public interest" that is the crux of the matter here because a concept as nebulous as "public interest" is extremely vulnerable to interpretations of convenience. Another SCOTUS decision, Kelo v. City of New London, said that New London, CT, had a "compelling public interest" in forcibly expropriating the property of Suzette Kelo et al in order to provide land so Pfizer could build a new research center.

"Compelling public interest" was the excuse for allowing essentially unrestricted use of eminent domain. It could well be the excuse for allowing the Second Amendment to be, for all practical purposes, rendered moot.

Can Draconian restrictions on the First Amendment be far behind, especially if the courts decide that there is a "compelling public interest?"

[K4GUN]

I don't agree with much of that analysis.

I don't see how the Court can find that "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment differs materially from any other "right of the people," which the Court has always defined as an individual right, not a collective right. The anti-gun arguments citing the "militia clause" do so because they must do so to avoid the issue of an individual right, and that is why they consistently avoid the "right of the people" clause.

All of the arguments supporting the restrictions on machine guns (and any other chosen category) can still be supported under a clear determination that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and individual right. Just as Holmes famously pointed out that you do not have the freedom to cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, the state can assert that it has a compelling public interest in restricting the sale and use of machine guns. The issue with the DC law was that it prohibited, outright, the ownership of any handgun in DC. That is beyond the exercise of a reasonable restriction.

I think we will see a six-three decision in favor of an individual right.

I agree that a right is always an individual right. I think its a slam dunk. The problem is really not so much the Heller decision as it is the old Miller decision. In Miller, they were so careful to find the guy guilty because nobody showed that a short barreled shotgun is useful to a military. Ergo, if it is useful to a military, it can't be restricted as it is in the NFA.

Like I said, nobody has dared go back to the court on this because they are afraid that they would rule on the government's other position about the collective right. With that fear gone, its only a matter of time.

Yes, its a big can of worms. A big one.

[KB1QKQ]

Its heady stuff. There's more to it still. Many states will have to change their laws in order to comply with the ruling if it goes anything close to the lower court.

It's a mess. I gave up my 07ffl manufacturers license, my NFA class 2 (class 2 is mfg of NFA items) SOT last summer. Just too much, paperwork, hassle, alphabet boy visit/compliance checks, FET tax, arms produced,, paperwork and compliance was a full time job. Then there are laws most never hear about like 922r, a new one in 06 prohibiting import of barrels which killed AK and FN building. Those evil black rifles sold 9 to 1, put alot of mfgs out of business. There's so many more infringements and new laws, confusion on all sides, can't even keep up when I was manufacturing. 1934 NFA act in itself took the 2nd and shredded it to bits. They been doing it ever since, a slice at a time.

[KB1QKQ]

I agree that a right is always an individual right. I think its a slam dunk. The problem is really not so much the Heller decision as it is the old Miller decision. In Miller, they were so careful to find the guy guilty because nobody showed that a short barreled shotgun is useful to a military. Ergo, if it is useful to a military, it can't be restricted as it is in the NFA.


Funny no one "recalled" the 1897 Winchester Trench Guns aka SHORT BARRELED SHOTGUN used by our military in the trenches. They found it USEFULL. The true original trenchgun, not the sporting 1897. Before that short shotguns went back to blunderbuss. Not long after gunpowder was invented shot was fired out of crude barrels. Miller and his atty just didn't even bother to show the 2nd time it went to court, lackadaisical like the people with Klintoons AWB. Dropped their vigil, "it can't happen" Well it did along with dozens of other 2nd infringements.