For
the NRA, it was not supposed to be this way. After the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment granted a limited right to have a gun in the home, the NRA bragged that it was just the "opening
salvo" in a legal war to use the courts to dismantle the nation's gun laws.
Yet three years, 400 legal challenges, and "millions of dollars in [NRA] legal bills" later, all the gun lobby has had to show for its efforts is a growing body of case law affirming the right of the people to have strong gun laws short of a total handgun ban. Just last week, the same Texas judge who was previously overruled for ruling that domestic abusers have a right to own guns threw out the NRA's lawsuit claiming that teens have a right to buy semi-automatic handguns. Never before have so many courts so cogently affirmed the constitutionality of so many strong gun laws in such a short span of time.
But the biggest case was yet to come. After the Heller ruling, Washington, D.C. enacted some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, banning semi-automatic assault weapons and assault clips and requiring mandatory handgun registration.
So the NRA teamed up with Dick Heller himself to file the broadest legal challenge yet , arguing that Mr. Heller had a right not just to a handgun in his home, but also to amass an arsenal of AK-47s and high-capacity assault clips in the nation's capital and to hide his guns from registration laws that help police solve crimes. Even better, the lawsuit would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the same court that originally struck down the D.C. handgun ban.
Yet, in what the Wall Street Journal called "the latest in a string of judicial setbacks for gun-rights activists," the D.C. Circuit this week rejected Mr. Heller's challenge and failed to strike down any of Washington, D.C.'s strong gun laws. Instead, it ruled that even the District's toughest-in-the-nation gun laws simply "do not affect the core right protected by the Second Amendment" to have a gun in the home.
Citing and heavily relying on evidence submitted by the Brady Center about the dangers of assault weapons and the effectiveness of strong gun laws, Reagan-appointee Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the majority and upheld D.C.'s assault weapon and assault clip ban. He noted that the ban barred "civilian copies of military weapons" that "pose a danger to innocent people and particularly to police officers," and that the ban does not "substantially affect [anyone's] ability to defend themselves."
And while the NRA has claimed that handgun registration amounts to an unconstitutional atrocity on par with the Nazi Kristallnacht rampage or the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda, Judge Ginsburg held that "the basic requirement to register a handgun is longstanding in American law," has been "accepted for a century in diverse states and cities," and is so "self-evidently de minimis" that such laws "cannot reasonably be considered onerous."
The majority also took the unusual step of issuing a lengthy "appendix" lambasting Judge Brett Kavanaugh's flawed dissent that would have allowed AK-47 arsenals in the nation's capital. The majority rips Judge Kavanaugh's suggestion that gun laws must be struck down even if they serve a "compelling government interest in preventing death and crime." Rather, the majority correctly points out that it is the job of the people through their elected officials, not activist courts, "to determine in the first instance whether banning semi-automatic rifles in particular would promote important law-enforcement objectives."
Lastly, while Judge Ginsburg concluded that several of Washington, D.C.'s laws were "novel," he refused to strike down any of those as well. Instead, he gave the District of Columbia the opportunity "to develop a more thorough factual record" at which point the court must "accord substantial deference" to the District's evidence. So far, such deference has resulted in challenged laws being upheld.
The NRA's dreams that District of Columbia v. Heller would result in a free-for-all of gun-toting teens and AK-47 arsenals has so far been soundly rejected. Instead, the NRA's litigation has led to a host of well-reasoned decisions from Republican-appointed judges upholding strong gun laws. While the NRA recently complained in an e-mail to its members that it is facing "a series of Second Amendment disasters," who knew they'd be in cases handpicked and funded by the NRA itself?
"Assault weapons" are no more dangerous than non assault weapons. A .223 round is the same whether it comes from a single-shot bolt action rifle or a thousand dollar AR with all the latest tactical doodads. Ten, 15, or 30 round magazines do not affect the lethality of the firearm, or make crime more likely; most gun crimes involving the discharge of a firearm involve less than three shots, and criminals can easily make their own magazines (it's just metal and a spring) or buy many low-capacity magazines. The "AK-47's" the author refers to are merely semi-automatic rifles which look like the infamous, fully-automatic gun. They fire a single shot with the pull of a trigger, and fire a round no more powerful than the .30-30 which is the most popular hunting round in the country.
Bans of types of firearms do not serve "a compelling government interest in preventing death or crime". By that logic, all firearms should be banned. All such laws do is impose arbitrary restrictions and costs on lawful gunowners and contribute to the incremental destruction of 2nd Amendment rights. As long as they aren't criminal or negligent with them, a sane, non-felon adult should be able to own whatever they want. The mere ownership of a weapon harms no one.
What crimes would a legal law abiding persons guns be involved in without the legal gun owner? Heller's weapons need to be registered why? To help police SOLVE CRIMES really?
Quote:
"The NRA's dreams that District of Columbia v. Heller would result in a free-for-all of gun-toting teens and AK-47 arsenals has so far been soundly rejected."
I think the NRA's dream is far from that Henigan and you know it too, and your hypothesis of a free-for-all teenage wild west packing AK47s is beyond foolish and even if your paranoia became true, under current law they would all be resposible, legal citizens owning them so much for the lawless hordes theory.
Someone told me the definition of "assault clip" was basically a magazine that could hold more than some arbitrary number of rounds. Apparently that's not write, because Henigan uses the phrase "high capacity assault clip", and obviously it would be redundant to say "high capacity magazine that has a high capacity".
So have you decided, Mr Henigan, what this term you made up even means?
In 2001, the House Government Reform Committee questioned the accuracy of Mr. Holder’s depiction of what he did as deputy attorney general in the last-minute pardon by President Clinton of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose former wife, Denise Rich, had donated $1.3 million to Democrats.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/holders-honesty-before-congress-disputed-in-earlie/
So why are the gun control apologists supporting him after countless Mexicans and two US agents have died due to his complicity?
Actual NRA cases that weren't mentioned above. How many of those 'hundreds' of cases were actual NRA or SAF cases?
The real 'desperation' is the Brady's et al doing everything they can to claim 'victory' when they are shedding staff and money and their supporters on the hill are deathly quiet.
September 15, 2011
Federal Judge declared the NRA doctor gun gag law illegal: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
A federal judge in Miami has declared unconstitutional a Florida law that made it illegal for physicians to ask patients about guns in their homes.
In a 22-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ridiculed arguments by state officials that the law is necessary to protect gun rights.
"Despite the State's insistence that the right to 'keep arms' is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights," she wrote.
Appointed in 2004 by President George W. Bush, Cooke asserted that, instead, the legislation clearly violates both physicians' and patients' rights to free speech.
"On its face, the Firearms Owners' Privacy Act places restrictions on a practitioner's freedom to inquire about or discuss a particular subject matter," making it unconstitutional, she wrote.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/PreventiveCare/28529Florida Gun Gag Law Ruled IllegalBy John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage TodayPublished: September 15, 2011
Plus, who wants to spend a b-day in Afghanistan?
Hey, whatever keeps the Joyce Foundation money flowing, I guess.
Can you dis-prove the below listed assertions?
Kopel says (paraphreased):
1. There's no correlatioÂn between the availabiliÂty of guns and the frequency of homicide.
2. Regions with most guns have lowest homicide rates.
3. Whites have higher gun ownership rates than blacks yet have lower homicide rates.
4. Spikes in gun sales don't coincide with rises in murder.
5. Spikes in murder don't coincide with spikes in gun sales.
Toch says:
1. "when used for protectionÂÂ, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychologiÂÂcal buffer against the fear of crime."
2. "national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way."
3. "Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturationÂÂs of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggressionÂÂ."
Mr. Henigan is certainly correct that courts have rejected most (but not all) 2A cases to date, but he is probably incorrect in concluding that this means that the Second Amendment ends with Heller and McDonald and the basic ability to keep a handgun in one's home. Actually, it is reflective of the principle of judicial restraint -- with Supreme Court rulings only addressed to this narrow factual context, lower courts have been hesitant to go further. Many of these courts -- including Williams and Masciandaro -- explicitly stated that their result would be different if there were more on-point Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court has signaled an interest in taking additional 2A cases. Rather than speculating about the precise boundaries the Court will ultimately arrive at, I will suffice it to say that we haven't gotten there yet. I have a funny feeling articles like the above article will be humorous to review (and quote) in the future.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/mof.htm
There is no such requirement on citizenship. Your statement is just another example of people dengrating others as unamerican because they do not do what you and others want them to do.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/dc_circuit/2011/10/heller-challenge-redux-new-dc-gun-law-stands.html
The dissenting opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh another Republican appointee.
Remember that district courts are only a step up the judicial ladder and are not always the final word. It also should be remembered that all judicial decisions are subjective. Judges are political appointees and will not always issue rulings based on sound principles of Constitutional law instead they will often rely on their personal feelings to decide cases. One only hopes this case goes to the Supreme court and it again rules in favor of Heller.
The courts opinion can be read here:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf
I don't always agree with everything the NRA does, but I strongly support the organization. I think they see a much larger picture than most of us do. These court battles are minor skirmishes in a much larger fight to come. Loses and set backs are to be expected. My question then to Mr. Henigan is why should all Americans pay for the mistakes of a few? Whats good for DC and Chicago will not be good for the whole country.
Will you please explain why those deaths are considerably less than when gun control was at its peak?
Why has firearm deaths DROPPED over the last 15 or so years?