Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Heads up!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009 -- The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

Didn't Heller make it clear that the state could still restrict, although not ban, weapons? The case would seem to open the door to a crackdown on assault weapons.

It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.

Such a ban wouldn't pass muster with the Heller standard regardless of Miller. No compelling reason to ban the guns.

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.

Such a ban wouldn't pass muster with the Heller standard regardless of Miller. No compelling reason to ban the guns.

Do u have a particular part of the opinion in mind ?

Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict

an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Advocate wrote:

Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict

In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Advocate wrote:

an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.

Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict

In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Advocate wrote:

an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.

Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

WoW !!!!!
I had forgotten that portion of the majority opinion, Oralloy.
THANK U !
BEAUTIFUL JOB !!!




David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict

In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Advocate wrote:

an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.

Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

WoW !!!!!
I had forgotten that portion of the majority opinion, Oralloy.
THANK U !
BEAUTIFUL JOB !!!




David

You're welcome. But perhaps the thanks should be directed to Antonin Scalia or the Heller legal team. My part in all this was rather small (all I did was proofread an amicus for spelling errors and help make a firearms glossary for the amicus).

My taking any sort of real credit for this would be like a janitor at Los Alamos taking credit for our nuclear arsenal.

I prefer a polite society that is well armed.

Yeah, well u might get that if u r getting ready
for a fight, but as a matter of reasonable convenience n feasibility,
if u wanna be ready for unexpected trouble on a daily basis,
u 'll need something to wear (ideally concealed, in my opinion).

I think a fairly short barreled revolver of heavy caliber
for the stopping power e.g.,
.44 special loaded with hollow pointed slugs is good.
David

In Europe, where it is difficult to keep guns, their murder rate is a tiny fraction of ours.