The "gun rights" community is in full-throated opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and the pressure is building on the National Rifle Association to join the party. Last week, 26 well-recognized pro-gun partisans signed a letter opposing her nomination, led by former NRA President Sandy Froman and joined by 15 current members of the NRA Board or leaders of NRA state affiliates.
The grounds for opposition to Sotomayor on Second Amendment grounds are thin, but revealing. What the Second Amendment absolutists really want is a do-over of last year's Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. They know they won't get it with Justice Sotomayor.
Why would the pro-gun folks want a Heller do-over? Didn't the Heller Court vindicate their vision of the Second Amendment? Not really. It is true that the Heller majority discovered a previously non-existent individual right to a gun in the home for self-defense. But the Court also reached out to affirm that a wide range of gun control laws -- from "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" to "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons" -- are "presumptively lawful" even under the newly expansive reading of the Second Amendment. The "gun rights" crowd won a victory that may prove more symbol than substance.
As Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School has put it, "The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all." During the year since the Heller ruling, federal courts have been upholding all manner of gun laws. The only exceptions are two rulings striking down a provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act barring gun possession by persons awaiting trial for child pornography offenses. Funny how we've heard little cheering from the gun lobby about that triumph for Second Amendment rights.
There is much discussion in legal circles about whether the Supreme Court will apply the Second Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the so-called "incorporation" issue. The Heller decision expressly refrained from deciding that issue, leaving intact 19th century Supreme Court case law holding the Second Amendment applicable only to Congress. The issue seems primed for Supreme Court review, with the Second and Seventh Circuits ruling against incorporation and the Ninth Circuit ruling for it.
But the ultimate significance of the incorporation issue for state and local gun laws may be less than first meets the eye. After deciding that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws, the Ninth Circuit upheld the gun law at issue - a tough regulation of the possession and sale of guns on public property - because it did not "meaningfully impede" the narrow right recognized in Heller to have a gun in the home for self-defense. The broad categories of "presumptively lawful" gun laws laid out in Heller provide the framework for upholding a variety of state and local gun control laws short of a handgun ban similar to that struck down in Heller.
The gun advocates' real problem with Judge Sotomayor is that her gun rulings reflect a respect for judicial precedent, not the activism they need for a Heller do-over. They criticize her for joining the 3-0 Second Circuit opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo upholding a New York state statute banning possession of a particular martial arts weapon. As Judge Sotomayor explained in response to questioning by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), that holding simply enforced the Supreme Court's still valid precedent, as well as Second Circuit case law, finding the Second Amendment inapplicable to the states.
They invoke the 3-0 Second Circuit ruling in United States v. Sanchez-Villar finding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right," but that conclusion also merely restated longstanding precedent that the right has not been found "fundamental" as required for incorporation against the states.
Fidelity to precedent is not what the "gun rights" people are looking for. They want a Heller do-over.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090719/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico....
"The Second Amendment does not refer to a private individual right to own firearms."
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/254/13933303?fb_page_id=6236054211&m=6d54c0aa
Henigan does a service by calling this case to our attention. The case was about banning gun shows in California, which had long since closed the "gun show loophole" that the BC keeps talking about.
Thus we see that closing the "gun show loophole" will be only a first step toward efforts to ban gun shows.
Which is why I did not disagree with anything you said in your previous post. At best, the original quote is neutral and neither proves nor disproves the contention.
HOWEVER, I did wish to raise what I felt were legitimate concerns regarding Sotomayor. I am also concerned with her statement that she did not know whether the Constitution protected self defense. The issue is not whether you have a right to use a gun in aid of self defense, but whether any form of self defense is subject to state prohibition. Self defense is instinctual... the flight or fight response. A person will either fight or flee based upon an involuntary response over which they have no control. It would be similar to Sotomayor stating that she does not know whether a law prohibiting you from breathing on Tuesdays (to reduce CO2 emmisions) is Constitutional... This is part of the legal understanding of the "Life" interest mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the 5th Amend. Similarly, I would be amazed if Sotomayor could not articualte that a right to travel is protected by the "Liberty" interest also mentioned in the DOI and the 5th. Those concepts are "fundamental" for persons seeking to ascend to the SCOTUS bench. She SHOULD have no problem with them.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal agents have arrested a convicted murderer for allegedly providing the gun later used to kill ex-NFL quarterback Steve McNair.
Adrian J. Gilliam Jr. was arrested by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
A criminal complaint unsealed Friday in Nashville says that Gilliam — who was convicted of murder and attempted armed robbery in 1993 in Florida — admitted he sold the gun to the woman who later shot McNair."
If only we closed that damn "Gunshow Loophole(tm)." I'm guessing that Gilliam would have never sold that gun to McNair's murderer if only the transaction went through an FFL first.
Dennis, are you getting this? Criminal recidivism is running rampant while you and Paul are wasting time and money trying to stop the big bad NRA and us "Domestic Terrorists)tm)."
A convicted MURDERER out onthe streets. Where have we seen this before??
The course of action an individual chooses in an attack/assault situation is a HIGHLY personal one and if your choice is to attempt to run away, then so be it. More power to you.
I do, however, have several concerns:
First I hope that you are neither so arrogant nor so foolhardy as to think that your choice fits everyone. Bluntly, it doesn’t!
Secondly, I fear that you course of action would likely place you, and more especially any children or infirmed that might be in your company, in grave danger. Please carefully re-read ‘mojo’s’ post above.
Lastly, empirical evidence shows that defense with a firearm is THE MOST EFFICIENT means available & that it results, statistically, in the lowest incidence of the intended victim suffering injury or death. That includes the victim complying with the assailant’s demands!
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
And what if your attacker has a gun? Do you think you can outrun bullets?
Judge Sotomayor is definitely an excellent replacement choice for Justice Souter; and it was clear from the Q & A's with Coburn (R-Muskogee), specifically, on the Heller ruling & individual gun rights guarantee that she obviously knew her stuff better than he did ... & that much of what she explained for him went WAY over Coburn's head.
For example, Coburn seemed to be fishing for more than what what provided for in the landmark Supreme Court ruling; as he stated a 'fundamental, incorporated right' to bear arms. Judge Sotomayor, however (being both learned & experienced) responded in her typical thoughtful, wise manner by explaining: "...[E]ven once you recognize a right, you are always considering what the state is doing to limit or expand that right, and then decide, 'Is it OK Constitutionally?'"
Yes.
Big surprise.
"Five police officers were shot and two suspects killed in an early-morning shootout Thursday in Jersey City, N.J., according to Police Chief Thomas J. Comey.
The primary suspect was carrying an automatic weapon, said Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy.
The shootout happened about 5 a.m. after officers approached two people heading for a car connected to an armed robbery, Comey said. Police were conducting a criminal investigation involving the pair."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533086,00.html?mrp
Anyone want to place bets on whether or not these criminals had priors for violent crime??
Oh boy............
Lautenburg isn't taking this lying down, though. He wants to launch an investigation into...............Airsoft???? That's right Frank, go after a toy company, while real criminals are shooting real cops with REAL guns. But, the man is 112 years old, so I guess it's understandable.
This is a state where it is unlawful to carry pepper-spray, and posession of a slingshot is a felony.
Kelli would love it here.
Oh really Dennis? Perhaps you should tell that to the citizens of Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka, Illinois who had their gun rights restored when those communities repealed their restrictive gun laws after a suit was filed in the wake of Heller? How about those people in San Franciso public housing who got their gun rights restored after the housing authority was sued and decided to back down AND pay plaintiff's attorney feees. And let us not forget the injuction entered in a lawsuit in federal district court in the Western District of Washington contesting the state of Washington's refusal to allow legal aliens to purchase guns. The court, relying on Heller, stepped in and now those folks have a right to purchase guns. Let us not forget case law from the states applying Heller, such as Colvaiacolo v. Dormer, the decision from a trial court in Suffolk County, New York, holding that New York State cannot require handgun licensees to keep their handguns locked in safe when not in use, because Heller ruled a similar requirement in D.C. unconstitutional.
Yeah Dennis keep whistling in the dark but the attorneys for the State of Washington, the San Francisco Housing Authority, Wilmette, Evanston, Morton Grove, Winnetka, and Suffolk County know what the true score is and they knew when to fold em. Too bad you don't.
Actually, he was talking about its effect on DECISIONS issued by FEDERAL courts. The count employed by Winkler intentionally disregarded the effect of any and all state court decisions, the effect of settlements reached prior to a decision and even the decisions reached in Federal Courts which are not reported in West Law or Lexis.(the decision by the federal court in the Western District of Washington was not reported in Lexis or WestLaw). The far reaching effects of Heller are quite dramatic and will be even greater if and when incorporation is established... which it should under normal substantive due process analysis.
Winkler, rigged the count to make it appear something that it is not. BTW Winkler is not unbiased, he authored a brief in Heller advocating against the individual right thesis.
Oh really Dennis? Non-existent? How about some pre 2nd case law? "The mere having a gun was no offense . . . for a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family . . ." Rex v. Gardner, 87 Eng. Rep. 1240, 1241 (K.B. 1739). "A gun may be kept for the defense of a man's house."Mallock v. Eastley, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370, 1374 (K.B. 1744), accordWingfield v. Stratford, 96 Eng. Rep. 787 (K.B. 1752). The King v. Thompson, 100 Eng. Rep. 10, 12 (K.B. 1787). Ok, then we have post 2nd amend cases such as Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) or Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) which went much further and extendrd the right to concealed carry. I bet you wish those cases were non-existant, huh Dennis?
That's because nearly all those cases involved criminal defendants. The goal of Heller wasn't to increase gun access to criminals. It was to increase access to lawful citizens, such as Dick Heller, so they can avoid being victims of crimes.
So gun rights advocates really arn't opposed to rulings that state criminals are still restricted under the second amendment. What we want to see is rulings that uphold the rights of lawful citizens, which could be coming soon in regard to the Chicago gun case.
Meanwhile there have been many other "second amendment triumphs" that Dennis doesn't want us to know about. Several of Chicago's suburbs have dropped their handgun bans. The San Francisco public housing authority has ended their ban on guns in public housing. Washington D. C.'s attempt to defy Heller with gun law so strict they might as well be total bans have gone down the drain. These cases didn't involve court rulings, but they are significant all the same
Absolutely 100% incorrect. No one is asking for completely unrestricted firearm ownership or carry. What they are trying to do is see if she will try to overturn the Heller decision or continue to refuse incorporation of the 2nd Amendment with the 14th.
"How can the NRA by so hypocritical?? It wants to pass bad laws rather than just enforce the laws already on the books"
Also 100% incorrect. First, it is NOT the NRA doing the questioning. Second, the NRA FULLY SUPPORTS ENFORCING CURRENT LAWS.
"The Brady Campaign's only agenda is to prevent and reduce gun injuries and deaths"
That is the flag they wrap themselves in, however, their actions show otherwise.
Looks like you have bit into the anti-gun propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Absolutely, as does everyone on this forum.
Ethanellie, we also call for violent criminals to be punished to the full extent of the law. No plea bargains. No early parole in the name of prison-overcrowding. If we have to put them in WWII POW style prison camps, fine.
You will find that most of the very same people who are the most vocal gun control supporters, ar equally zealous in calling us 'draconian', for wanting to keep violent felons in jail for a meaningful length of time.
All of the 5 Philadelphia police oficers who were killed in the line of duty last year, were killed directly by, or in persuit of repeat, violent felons who were out on parole. This is not uncommon throughout the US.