Skip to main content

View Diary: People, Let's STOP (only) parsing the 2nd Amendment,Heller and McDonald remain (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks. You could've ended this post with the (19+ / 0-)

    title. Like you I don't think Heller was rightly decided but that is beside the point. It is the law of the land barring a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision which reverses it. And lest there be any doubt, there will be no no reversal coming soon.

    The battle lines at this point aren't on whether there is an individual right, but rather what reasonable restrictions on that right will be upheld. Skalia made clear that he did not think that the Heller decision in any way prohibited the Congress from imposing restrictions on gun ownership. It remains to be seen how far he is willing to let those restrictions go.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:05:15 AM PST

    •  obama will probably appt. another justice. (5+ / 0-)
      It is the law of the land barring a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision which reverses it.
      Heller, et al may then be reversed, as so many other cases have been, by subsequent courts. judges are political beasts, always have been, and i don't believe democrats have been, as a group, any more unaware of that than republicans have. it's why we aren't mourning the recent passing of the late, justice bork.
      •  He'll NOMINATE Another Justice nt (5+ / 0-)

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:01:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hope he gets another appointment or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        two, but if he is merely replacing those in the minority in Heller that will not change anything.

        Also, like it or not, the principle is started decisis is an important one and I suspect that any Supreme Court will be loath to reverse Heller, notwithstanding how they feel about it, so soon after it is decided. On a personal level, I wish they would. But as a matter of the stability of Supreme Court jurisprudence, it would be troubling.

        For good or ill, and often it is for ill, the principal keeps the Supreme Court from being just another legislative body. If Supreme Court decisions change with elections or based solely on the membership on the court we lose any semblance of stability. How it generally works is that as time passes a decision that falls into disfavor is slowly whittled away until it is finally reversed. Rarely is it reversed en toto right away, but there are exceptions.

        The principal has caused us to have to live sometimes for far too long with bad decisions, such as Plessy v Ferguson, but has also had good results such as keeping Roe Wade the law of the land even though arguably there are five justices who have some: problems with it.

        Further, affiant sayeth not.

        by Gary Norton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:46:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, you really believe that Obama (0+ / 0-)

        will appoint a liberal justice?

        Well, maybe on this issue.

        A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:20:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unlike you (13+ / 0-)

      I agree with Heller. Scalia and I couldn't be put in a room together without only one of us coming out (probably not me, I'm a thinker not a fighter) but still I agree w/Heller.

      This diary is needed, we waste our time pulling apart all the individual words in the amendment. If people are serious about doing a good job on reasonable gun restrictions, start with accepting what is decided law and involve gun owners in teh decision.

      I've said it before, but here goes again. A smart, thoughtful, well written law is more likely to be followed than one thrown out there in a fit of emotion and it will reality based.

      We also need to expend some energy on what is happening in our country that causes these extreme acts. I don't pretend to know, but we have a hole in our collective soul and it isn't the fact that someone owns a gun.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:47:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Involving gun owners in the decision (0+ / 0-)

        means nothing gets done. Alas, that's what's going to happen anyway, because, after all, a few dead children means nothing next to owning a fucking gun.

        •  So (5+ / 0-)

          If you want to make a law that involves.....women, gays, horse owners, Quakers....anyone who is involved and has an not involve them in the writing of the law. Right?

          There's a recipe for success!

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  About 100 million gun owners are not in the NRA (7+ / 0-)

          Abusing hunters and jewelry couriers won't help get new laws passed.

          •  Effective politics is building coalitions (4+ / 0-)

            Rep. Moran, D-Va. has put together a bill that reforms gun law in ways that an overwhelming majority of NRA members approve of.

            It would not have prevented Newtown, of course, nothing practical would have. It might have prevented Webster. It would force many problematic people onto the black market.

            Involve gun owners, and maybe it will help them realize that you don't want to kick down their door and confiscate their grandfather's 30-06. Assuming of course that you don't.

            •  No, outlawing semi automatics wouldn't have (0+ / 0-)

              prevented Newtown. Of course not. You gun nuts will have no shame or conscience.

              •  what, cuz 1994's AWB was so totally effective? (0+ / 0-)


                Federal government studies show that the AWB had a minimal effect on crime, and that reinstating it would continue to have a only minimal effect on crime. In addition studies have shown that the types of weapons banned would only account for 1% to 6% of all crimes involving firearms.

                Let us not forget that mass shooting at Columbine High School occurred while the AWB was in full effect. It's also worth noting that the perpetrators also had almost 100 homemade bombs. In addition, the worst school shooting in history occurred at Virginia Tech, where the shooter did not even use firearms covered under the AWB.

                The assault weapons ban proved of little value where it counted most: on the street.

       defined assault weapons in a manner that would allow gun manufacturers to skirt the ban without much trouble. It exempted 650 firearms and grandfathered in weapons and ammo clips produced or purchased before the enactment of the ban.

                ...The AR-15 semiautomatic rifle reportedly used by Adam Lanza in the Newtown shootings was the sort of weapon gun control advocates had hoped to prohibit with the 1994 ban. Yet even though the state of Connecticut passed its own assault weapons ban...this particular gun was legal in the state

                oh was effective at one thing, though:
                the weak ban that emerged might not have been worth the cost...the Republicans...romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:42:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you- in a room we'd probably greatly agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, mahakali overdrive

        I can't say I "disdain" heller. I truly have not studied it enough. The diaries just got to the point that we are not going to act on "but the second amendment says".

        Perhaps if you discussed Lujan you could make it out together. That was the only time I appreciated Scalia (ie generally you use Precedent to well help, there he basically wrote the most condescending opinion ever and I have to admit I kinda found his cites humorous).

        I suppose I am saying in part, wrong or right (Heller), there's two ways (mainly) 1. to wring your hand about the second Amendment (and then realize your interpretation was already dismissed right or wrong);

        or start from the latter and either attack it like Citizens United (not what I am saying, but as I say about if these decisions get as transparent as the 30's who knows) or preferably first understand Hamilton yes said x, Washington used as y, but in 2008 a decision was made, and 5 years later won't be reversed, understand what it allows and recalibrate (ie laws not at odds, or attack like citizens).

      •  this, 1,000 times (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, CroneWit
        A smart, thoughtful, well written law is more likely to be followed than one thrown out there in a fit of emotion and it will reality based.
        and basically, unless the proposal would actually prevent gun violence, it's really kinda not worth the fight that is bound to ensue.  for example:  why go to the mat to enact stricter storage requirements when violations of that law would only be discovered after something happened, like with sandy hook?  

        saying that all firearms must be sold through licensed dealers is all well and good until we come face to face with the reality of the black market.  beyond the exception of private sales -- and i'm not sure it'd be right to tell people they have to get screwed on price by selling only to a licensed dealer -- this is pretty much the law already.  and again, violations could only be sussed after the fact, so what would this really prevent?  

        and yet we see people left and right around here saying that we should just replicate australia's policy, like it'd be a cakewalk.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:56:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was waiting for someone to say that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, CroneWit

      Not only are regulations possible under Heller, it will take so long for challenges to those regulations to bubble up to the Supreme Court that we may have different Justices by then. The decision is open-ended enough that it won't get settled in lower courts.

      Heller would prevent an outright ban, but gun owners are constantly reassured that nobody is talking about that.

    •  Exactly, GN. How many guns, for instance, (0+ / 0-)

      constitute the ability of one to defend oneself? One? Ten? One hundred?

      Is it reasonable to assume I need 10 Bushmasters with multiple drums/extended capacity, each of extended capacity to "defend myself"?

      Right now, it would appear the gunnies seem to believe that almost any weapon in almost any number with almost any nifty add ons and should be legal.

      From my seat, it looks like it is going to take YEARS to ferret this all out in the courts and in that time, justices will come and go. And maybe--just maybe--both Citizens and Heller will get a whipping from a new court.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:16:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site