close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Understanding Heller

Discussion in 'Important Gun Control Info' started by Jeff S., Jul 27, 2008.

  1. Edge

    Edge Millennium Member

    210
    9
    Jan 4, 1999
    Sorry for not providing one earlier. He gave a great presentation, answered questions until there weren't any more, and got a standing ovation if memory serves. He posts updates on his chicago gun case website which is referenced earlier. It was worth the fairly long drive to Springfield just to hear him.
     
  2. Eagle22

    Eagle22

    597
    0
    Feb 6, 2009
    Raleigh NC
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


    some important notations:

    1. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,'

    2. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;'

    3. the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
     

    Last edited: Apr 6, 2009

  3. Jeff S.

    Jeff S. Carson Valley

    1,625
    288
    Jun 28, 2003
    Bozeman, MT
    From www.chicagoguncase.com:

    By Alan Gura

    "As the case ramps up, and we have more information to share, this site will become a bit more active.

    On Monday, we’re going to be filing the opening brief on the merits before the Supreme Court. Check in around mid-day if you’re interested.

    Also on Monday, we expect to see filed (and of course, we’ll post here) the NRA’s “Respondents’ Brief.” If this sounds strange to you, you’re right: it is an unusual set of circumstances, but one dictated by the Court’s rules.

    In the lower courts, NRA and affiliated individuals filed several companion cases against Chicago and its gun-banning suburbs. The other defendants folded, but Chicago and the Village of Oak Park soldiered on. The three cases – ours (McDonald), NRA v. Chicago, and NRA v. Oak Park – were considered together in the Court of Appeals. Under the Supreme Court’s rules,

    “All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in this Court . . . All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing documents.” Rule 12.6.

    So NRA is a “Respondent in Support of Petitioners,” and Oak Park is a Respondent. The practical consequence is that NRA’s brief needs a red Respondent’s cover instead of a green Amicus one, their brief is due the same date as ours instead of a week later, and their word limit goes from 9,000 to 15,000.

    We’re informed Oak Park will not be filing a separate brief, but will be joining Chicago’s efforts."




    The briefs will be out Monday and I'll post them here.
     
  4. Jeff S.

    Jeff S. Carson Valley

    1,625
    288
    Jun 28, 2003
    Bozeman, MT
    There has been more updates from Gura at Chicagoguncase.com.


    Also, a very interesting article from http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/02/killing-slaughterhouse, about the upcoming McDonald v Chicago. It explains the methods used by Gura to try and incorporate the Second Amendment against the States.
     
  5. Jeff S.

    Jeff S. Carson Valley

    1,625
    288
    Jun 28, 2003
    Bozeman, MT
    Alan Gura's reply brief is now posted at Chicagoguncase.com
     
  6. SCmasterblaster

    SCmasterblaster Millennium Member

    18,246
    639
    Sep 24, 1999
    Hartford, Vermont
    No matter how some folks may try to spin this, Heller is a HUGE win for the gun owners. This country went through over 200 years without having such a huge victory in support of the Second Amendment, and now we have dozens of eggheads trying to down-play it. Like it or not, this country now has confirmed Constitutional authority for most of its adult citizens to be armed with firearms. As long as I do not commit certain crimes, I shall be allowed to possess my G17 or most other firearms. This is LONG overdue!
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2010
  7. unit1069

    unit1069

    8,159
    188
    Oct 10, 2007
    So. Central US
    You're correct, but only up to a point.

    The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

    Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

    A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

    This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

    "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)
     
  8. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    6,711
    2
    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    The only candidate I've seen who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is Ron Paul.
     
  9. SCmasterblaster

    SCmasterblaster Millennium Member

    18,246
    639
    Sep 24, 1999
    Hartford, Vermont
    Let us then hope to God that this country does not re-elect BHO!