Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide

[tracker]

I, for one, was really happy about the Supreme Court's decision regarding "Heller vs DC". For once---the Anti-Gun crowd has taken a hit, in their claim that the 2nd Amendment wording "Right of The People", does not in fact mean "The People--Citizens--Just Me and You". The Supreme Court has determined otherwise. Not only was this a "Blackeye" for the Anti-Gun crowd, but also a reason of celebration for the Pro-Gun crowd, and indeed, alot of us did celebrate! However--Let's look at this "Victory" very carfully!

The Justices determined that the wording, did indeed refer to the people, giving the people the "Right to keep and bear arms". A more in depth reading of the decision, clarifies the true judgement of the Justices.

1. "...violate the Second Amendment Right of individuals..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND THE BAN VIOLATED IT.
2. "...who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT MILITIA STATUS IS IMMATERIAL.
3. "...handguns and other firearms..."
THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT HANDGUNS ARE INCLUDED, THOUGH SOME ROOM WAS LEFT FOR VERY NARROW TYPES OF GUN BANS
4. "...for private use in their homes."
THE RULING TODAY WAS LIMITED TO “IN THE HOME” AS THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT

This is definitly a victory in our quest for the True wording of the Second Amendment---But the True Battle has just started. San Francisco and Chicago are the first targets of the NRA and Pro-Gun groups. The decision of the Supreme Court will be the focal point of these lawsuits, and you can be certain, that the lawyers for these cities will have one thing on their mind---The Supreme Court ruling Did Not eliminate the power of the States to pass "Reasonable" laws to protect their citizens. What is "Reasonable"? That makes a good question for a Second "Supreme Court Decision".

The fact is--There will be numerous "Reasonable" laws passed, ( Or shall we say Reasonable Infringements ), by numerous Cities and States, using the LOOPHOLE, that the Supreme Court Ruling has provided ( See Numbers--3 and 4 ). This is the upcoming battle, Not a challenge of the Justices decision----a Challenge of what the Justices Did Not Decide.

"We The People"

[Bohemian]

I found nothing in the heller opinion that left it open for some kinds of gun bans...

Regulations, Restrictions, related to mental defectives, felons yes, BANS NO...

In fact they reiterated several times that a ban on an entire class of firearm was unconstitutional...

E.G.:
...The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms”...
Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional
muster...

...United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54...

The people are the militia and the SCOTUS also was clear that the militia clause was irrelevant to the right of the people to KEEP(Possess) and BEAR(Carry) arms...

The mere collection and possession of any type of firearm used by the military, law enforcement and or more then one civilian for a lawful purpose meets the Miller opinion and the Heller opinion criteria...

Experts have found Miller flawed many times in its decision when they claimed that a sawed off shotgun was not in use by the military... when in fact during WWI the U.S., its allies and opposition used sawed off shotguns in the trenches in Europe...
This evidence was not presented in the Miller argument...

Additionally, during the Heller argument, the justices reiterated that Miller was deficient and that a machine gun would be protected under the second amendment...

Further, the founding fathers, clearly stated that the second amendment was our best and only defense against the potential tyranny of our own government...

So if the founding fathers foresaw the potential for revolution and freedom from tyranny of our own government why would they allow the government to be better armed then the people it represents?

As the old saying goes, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight and you don't bring a hunting rifle or shotgun to a machine gun fight...

Supreme Court Declares That the Second Amendment
Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
NRA-ILA :: District of Columbia v. Heller

The SCOTUS Opnion:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

[tracker]

"I found nothing in the heller opinion that left it open for some kinds of gun bans..."

THE RULING TODAY WAS LIMITED TO “IN THE HOME” AS THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURT
The ruling was based on the case presented to the Justices--A ruling on the DC Gun Ban, which dealt with the rules applied to ownership and Keeping of the firearm in a residence.

"In fact they reiterated several times that a ban on an entire class of
firearm was unconstitutional..."

THE COURT RULED TODAY THAT HANDGUNS ARE INCLUDED, THOUGH SOME ROOM WAS LEFT FOR VERY NARROW TYPES OF GUN BANS

As far as the States ability to empose Laws regarding the safety of their Citizens:

The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns.

[Bohemian]

...

In their arguments opposing (liberal gun grabbing) counsel attempted to limit the scope of the decision of the SCOTUS by asking them to only rule on provisions in the home...
Their opinion clearly has much wider scope, further during arguments 5 of the justices indicated a need for such wider scope then the Miller opinion of old ...

READ THE AMICUS BRIEFS, ARGUMENTS, OPINION, before you babel any further:
NRA-ILA :: District of Columbia v. Heller

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

Listen to the audio recording of the oral arguments (RealPlayer required)

View the transcript

[HK4U]

The bureaucrats still have an out. If we have a crisis situation in this country they can declare marshal law. I am sure some of them are planning the crisis now.

[Bohemian]

W. Bush and 30 Governors and counting have issued executive orders preventing the disarming of citizens following the shenanigan's of Katrina ...

[rickahyatt]

THEREIN lies the greatest hidden danger of all, in in the American Psychological Assn's long-term infiltration into the Courts, mostly supplanting the Justices themselves, often eager to shorten difficult trials by throwing the case to the Mentals instead of determining law. And once some state-paid Mental, eager for more State $$$, has made some "Official" ruling, based upon not evidence nor the lack of it, but "Psychological Profile," based upon the gleaned-out "Hate Mail" by relatives, jilted girlfriends, whatever - Then said "Official Document" t is set into stone, forever! (Ever try to undo an IRS determination?)
Then what if, later on, it's determined that the cause of such "Defect" was merely (Conservative) Ideological belief, cultural difference, hypnosis, actual Army PSYOPS duty, and/or a simple reversible dietary malady like Celiac's Disease? (Their own APA Studies point out they can't tell the difference...) But the "Subject" refuses YET ANOTHER Shrink "Exam" to let the Judge wash his hands of the matter?
I know, I was deliberately set up to be a Case Study for exactly that.
If you keep up on the APA at all, you would know that they have been quite active as an enemy front group since the '70's, first espousing that "Homosexuality is normal." Known to be trying to weaken our military forces. So, after decades, did their Dr. Spitzer suddenly acclaim that "It can be cured!" Having created a "Consumer Group" (That's what they call it, now) by luring hordes out of the closet, he now stood to make $$$ by "Delivering his Services."
The very same with what the APA calls "Crazy." So self-serving, they claim that up to %70 of all American males (The current "Feminist" Agenda) need their "Psychological Treatments," and, of course, it should be paid for by the military and/or the government.
Bear in mind that I have endured how APA Dr. Sword of Maui publically pronounced that my having bought a short-barrelled .38, a "Saturday Night Special" (The last .38 HONSPORT had left on a special sale I was pressured to take part of), automatically portended that I "Automatically had murderous intent."
That I was later told my my wife (Handler) to buy one of their .22 American Arms derringers meant, he pronounced, that I bought the .22 shorts "Only to kill cops."
When a planted article in the Maui News suggested the shotgun to be the best home defense weapon, and I bought the last used one they had at MAUI EXPEDITIONS (A set up), a .410 short-barrelled, pistol-grip, black one, was it pronounced to be a "Street Sweeper." So as to be carried under a coat (Yeah, on Maui...) and .41 rounds used in it as Dum-Dum bullets. My supposed "Intent," even if I didn't have it, one "Never knows what lurks in the minds of..." Hysteria.
This media horror story/authority's insistance/some scandalous unpopular person has long been the means by corrupt Hawaii Politicians to engender more and more Police State Laws and control over the citizenry there. There is much Asian (Read CHICOM) influence there, naturally. You can read the same drift from any CHICOM propaganda site.
So... What your term, "Mentally Deficient" can also be read, and it will be if they can get away with it, as "Politically (And Conservatively) Incorrect." BEWARE...
Read my other postings here for more background, or viist my site at Rick A Hyatt Gary Condit Markus Wolf Erich Mielke Aribert Heim Rainer Rupp Clyde Conrad Unabomber and my Picasa Albulm if you wish.

[hpj3]

One of the most important parts of the decision has gone almost un-noticed by most. In fact, many have stated that the issue of scrutiny was not addressed. However, it was - and in a most creative way:

Many current gun-control laws are likely to pass constitutional muster under the Heller doctrines, though further challenges to specific laws are likely. Roger Pilon, vice president for constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointed out to us that Justice Scalia's opinion included the stipulation that, in such cases, courts should not apply "rational basis," the lowest level of scrutiny, to such laws, since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, requiring strict scrutiny when a legislative body seeks to limit it.

"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."

Despite the critics, it appears that we have gained much more than many realize.

Howard