NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FED. HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

[redeemed.man]

They are on our side except when it is too close to home. They didn't want the same idiots that voted Marion Barry into office time and time again to be able to carry or even own guns in the city they work in everyday. It is truly amazing that the Fed. Govt. still pushes strict gun control in Federal areas/territories as if the 2A doesn't apply to the Fed. If anything the Federal territories should be a bastion of freedom.

I don't think it's that, as most of those people would be disqualified from voting as felons. I think it's that they just don't care.

Funny but true. Yet they are allowed to vote in DC elections immediately upon release even if on Parole or Probation. Who else would they vote for but a fellow convict?

http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-as-an-ex-offender/#District of Columbia

 

[ConservativeNYer]

This is a great observation and very true.

Thanks. It's clear to me that we're never going to win any real victories in the courts. Congress should have acted years ago.

 

[redeemed.man]

Thanks. It's clear to me that we're never going to win any real victories in the courts. Congress should have acted years ago.

I won't go as far as to say never yet. If Obama gets to make a SCOTUS appointment I will have no choice but to agree with you.

 

[ConservativeNYer]

I won't go as far as to say never yet. If Obama gets to make a SCOTUS appointment I will have no choice but to agree with you.

I hope when that happens they have the balls to just completely overrule Heller and show America just where the left stands.

As it is, the Supreme Court ruled that an explicit ban on gun ownership is unconstitutional. But by denying cert to every other case, they've implicitly agreed that any de facto ban or set of restrictions (no matter how illogical) are okay. I think conservatives who keep saying that they're waiting for X case are deluding themselves.

 

[jrosenberger]

Thanks. It's clear to me that we're never going to win any real victories in the courts. Congress should have acted years ago.

The flood of people about to get their carry permits in Illinois would disagree with you, not to mention all of the residents of California eagerly watching Peruta play out.

 

[wolfwood]

I been informed that my analysis of Hightower is grossly mistaken and I withdraw my comments as incorrect.

 

[esqappellate]

I don't agree. Congress could easily pass a law (either under the nebulous "Commerce Clause" connection or as a 14th Amendment, Section 5 enforcement that would completely preempt all state and local firearms laws. Look at the way liberals in the blue states fight to the death to make sure that liberals in red states can get abortions or gay marriages. Gun rights supporters in red states should be doing the same.

Agreed, Congress could pass such a law. Indeed, there have been attempts to do so in the National Reciprocity area. They have failed to get through both Houses of Congress. But, it is not a matter of what Congress *can* do, but what is politically possible for Congress to do in this area. There are other considerations. For example, do you really want Congress to think that they have the power to tell some states (e.g., AZ, Vermont, Alaska and Wyoming) that they may not have constitutional carry. Careful for what you ask for, as these swords have two edges.

 

[yellowfin]

Yes. And the pro-gun people in the conservative states don't really care that their breathen trapped in the commie parts of America get screwed on a regular basis. If they did, they would have done something about it years ago.

I wouldn't say that. In many if not most cases, they simply aren't very aware of the plight of gun owners in communist states who get what they get against their will. The experience of a gun owner in a pro gun state is VERY different, so far removed from single party blue anti gun state politics that it is incomprehensible. Pro gun state people largely hold onto real American values, one of which is solving one's own problems. "God helps those who help themselves" as the saying goes. Those who don't either lack initiative, work ethic, or character, either one of which making them lesser people. Most of what a respectable, successful person sees in life in most ordinary circumstances in the majority of this country confirms that belief as accurate.

Solid one party states that allow anti gun legislators to abuse the people without any consequence give the assumption to outsiders that the people living there like it, or that nothing can be done, and in either case that those living there must be either cowards, wimps, or insane. (And having lived in NYS myself for a time, I did in fact observe a great many cowards, wimps, and idiots--not everyone, but enough for there to be a serious problem.) Explaining the situation that has come about via the complex interaction of civil rights law and Constitutional law history, gerrymandering, corruption, and the Curley Effect to someone who hasn't lived it, and even to those who have and don't know any better, makes one sound like either a law professor or a conspiracy theorist loon, or both. It is often above the head of someone who isn't the former if not totally uninteresting to even the latter, and is either way beyond the mainstream to most average Joe mid-to-low-information overly preoccupied working people. It's difficult and time consuming for a lot of people to get deep, detailed information that isn't served to them already. Thus, without knowing the how and why of the situation, let alone the telephone book thick details of what to do about it and what's going on, it's understandable however infinitely frustrating that the typical red state gun guy just doesn't have much sympathy for NY or CA. They're too busy doing what they do for a living, raising a family, and living the life they know rather than delve into a combination of science fiction, surrealism, mental illness, and John Locke vs. Karl Marx.

 

[esqappellate]

esqappellate, given that San Diego and Sheriff Gore is not appealing, what is the real chances of a call by a judge to go en banc (which would require a vote)? I've heard of situations where neither side asked for en banc but the government won and then there was a call for a vote. I haven't heard of it where the plaintiff wins, the government throws in the towel, and then a judge calls for it. Isn't there a lot of weight against something like that due to attorneys fees concerns, if the government isn't willing to fight a negative case against it then why should the court's time be wasted?

I have actually researched this a bit. Judges as a rule are loath to take on more work than necessary. In all the 40 years as an appellate lawyer, I have never seen a case taken en banc sua sponte. But my research demonstrates that it does happen. Judges do sua sponte call for en banc if they feel strongly enough about the issue decided by the panel. The First Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Third Circuit ordered en banc sua sponte just last year. Last year, a judge in the 9th Circuit requested such a vote, but rehearing was denied. In that case 8 members of the court (including O'Scannlain) dissented from the denial of en banc. Us v. Dreyer, 705 F.3d 951.. All I can say is that SD's decision not to seek rehearing is important and probably does make it marginally less likely that en banc will be ordered sua sponte. How much so is rank speculation.

 

[jrosenberger]

The first en banc rehearing of Nordyke in the 9th was sua sponte. Then the en banc panel sat on it until McDonald came down and then remanded it to the original panel.

 

[esqappellate]

The first en banc rehearing of Nordyke in the 9th was sua sponte. Then the en banc panel sat on it until McDonald came down and then remanded it to the original panel.

That en banc was on the question of whether the 2A applied to the States at all, the question settled by McDonald. Judge O'Scannlain's opinion had held that the 2A did apply to the States but then held for the defendants on the merits. The question in Peruta, is seems to me at least, is less weighty than that question.

 

[jrosenberger]

That en banc was on the question of whether the 2A applied to the States at all, the question settled by McDonald. Judge O'Scannlain's opinion had held that the 2A did apply to the States but then held for the defendants on the merits. The question in Peruta, is seems to me at least, is less weighty than that question.

As far as the weigh of the legal issue, I agree 100%. However, the direct practical effect on the parties here (and by extension the rest of the people and municipalities in CA) is arguably much greater.

It really will be fascinating to watch this all unfold over the coming months. This is definitely the most interesting confluence of events in 2A litigation since I've been following it (casually since Heller was granted and pretty closely post-McDonald). The possible permutations of Drake, Peruta, Richards, and Baker are pretty extensive.

 

[T'Challa]

Interesting. Thanks. I haven't followed Dearth at all. Honestly, the fact that the Republicans had a supermajority + Presidency from 2000-2006 and didn't completely eliminate D.C.'s gun laws nor impose carry reciprocity says to me that they are not really on our side.

It's crystal clear that politicians are politicians and they want the rights for themselves and no one else.

 

[Patrick]

They are on our side except when it is too close to home. They didn't want the same idiots that voted Marion Barry into office time and time again to be able to carry or even own guns in the city they work in everyday. It is truly amazing that the Fed. Govt. still pushes strict gun control in Federal areas/territories as if the 2A doesn't apply to the Fed. If anything the Federal territories should be a bastion of freedom.

Actually, hate to rain on the cynicism, but as people who know me will attest I am bountiful of optimism.

The House actually did try to force liberalized gun laws (including shall issue) on the city of DC, and in a way that they thought might be a slam dunk.

It was 2010 and DC had a real full-congressional representative in the works. It was the dream many wanted: true representation with voting power in the House. The Republicans acceded the call (even though many knew it was a guaranteed Dem seat, but 'taxation without representation' actually hits home with some true conservatives). In order to 'balance' the House vote, the Republicans worked a deal where Utah would also get an additional House seat (presumed Republican). In truth, it was a give-away to DC, because the census results were going to give Utah that additional seat anyway.

So what stopped everything?

Guns, In DC. Republicans also required that a provision of the DC home-rule charter be stripped. That provision is the only element that DC had to regulate anything firearm related. Once gone, that regulation would fall to the House, and everyone knew what that meant.

At first, the DC Council said they could swallow the guns, because getting a representative was the most critical goal they were seeking for almost 40 years. It was in their hands, and they figured they could always go back when the House was fully anti-gun and get the regulations put back. But then things changed, and even Eleanor Holmes-Norton (who was going to get a "real vote") turned on the deal.

Some claim the public safety/gun provision was a poison pill to prevent DC from getting the vote, but almost everyone was surprised when the city balked. It was a sweetheart deal. They were getting a seat 'balanced' by a seat that the Republicans were going to get anyway. Walking away meant no real chance at a vote in Congress anytime soon, and a +1 for the GOP in the House.

I think DC and Dem leadership in the House and the Administration got ahead of themselves and figured they (Dems) would take the House in 2012 anyway, so why budge an inch?

It was a bad move. The GOP was willing to play, but the contract was never signed. DC does not have a vote in Congress today, because the city leadership hates guns more than taxation without representation.

 

[Patrick]

Yes. And the pro-gun people in the conservative states don't really care that their breathen trapped in the commie parts of America get screwed on a regular basis. If they did, they would have done something about it years ago.

MSI receives some support from individuals in shall-issue states who are not residents here. It's not much, but it's a sign that people do care. And I know MSI people who send cash to CalGuns and even Florida Carry.

Our community is tight, and our best resources are our people. Trust me - MSI needs cash as much as any other group - but we (collective nationwide "we") will never outspend Bloomberg and the likes of Joyce. Our best resource is our people, and I know we here in MD are more rich today than we were even three years ago.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

DC does not have a vote in Congress today, because the city leadership hates guns more than taxation without representation.

Wow! If that isn't telling about how zealous the antis are, I don't know what is. They'd sooner forfeit their first-born than trust their fellow citizen with the right to self-defense.

 

[Patrick]

Wow! If that isn't telling about how zealous the antis are, I don't know what is. They'd sooner forfeit their first-born than trust their fellow citizen with the right to self-defense.

Pretty much, but part of their calculus including assuming they would get both the House and the Senate into Dem hands. They really did think they were going to get back the House and never lose the Senate. Ushering in 40 years of unbroken liberalism, and all that...

 

[Elliotte]

Pretty much, but part of their calculus including assuming they would get both the House and the Senate into Dem hands. They really did think they were going to get back the House and never lose the Senate. Ushering in 40 years of unbroken liberalism, and all that...

Well, there is some precedent. For 40 years 1954-1994 the House was under Democrat control. And from 1954-1980 and 1986-1994 the Democrats had the Senate too. That's pretty close to what your describing.

 

[Patrick]

Well, there is some precedent. For 40 years 1954-1994 the House was under Democrat control. And from 1954-1980 and 1986-1994 the Democrats had the Senate too. That's pretty close to what your describing.

And that history was specifically what they were saying they would repeat.

With the Party Of Stupid running the way they have recently, the Dems may get there yet.

 

[JPG]

For the Legal Eagles, should the government increase the purchase age to 21, would they word it like this case so it would pass muster with the courts?