Dick Heller: In His Own Words

It was national news on June 26 when the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's strict gun laws and declared that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. The media continues to dissect the impact of the District of Columbia v. Heller case on the future of gun control--and gun violence--in our country.

While the Court's 5-4 decision has remained under the magnifying glass, very little has been written to date about the plaintiff in the case, Dick Anthony Heller. From a few simple sound bites in newspaper articles and television clips, we've learned that Heller is 66 years old and works as a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington. But despite the fact that he originally filed his Second Amendment challenge in 2003, not much else has been gleaned about this man who now has such a prominent place in American history...

....until now. On September 18, Dick Heller surfaced to testify in a hearing conducted by the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. Heller's public comments on the Council's latest emergency legislation regarding firearms provide extraordinary--and disconcerting--insight into the mindset of the man who challenged the city's handgun ban and won.

The following is the written statement submitted by Heller at the hearing:

Mendelson Hearing, 9/18/08

I am Dick Heller.
The Constitution, in summary,
states that the PRIMARY MISSION of govt is to PROTECT the LIFE &
FREEDOMS of the people. The 2nd Amendment Rights of Law Abiding DC
residents have been harshly infringed.

For 32 years the city shackled us with regulations that criminals simply don't
participate in.

1 For a hand gun, criminals go to the marketplace - - that's the trunk of a car,
2 their purchase quantity is unlimited
3 there is no ballistics test, which is useless anyway,
4 there is no waiting period,
5 they pass no FBI background check,
6 they don't get finger printed,
7 the govt does not know who they are,
8 they take no safety classes,
9 they don't store the weapon securely & safely around minors,
10 they do NOT care about the legalities of when deadly force can be used,
11 the city can't even collect any taxes on these transactions, and
12 felons walk around & CARRY CONCEALED at their leisure!!
~
THOSE are conditions that should have been reserved for the Good Guys.

Criminals are walking the streets, carrying concealed, and YET for some reason
the city council thinks there is a NEED to monitor ME, a CERTIFIED ARMED
DC Special Police officer, and to monitor the rest of our good citizens with gun registration. SOMETHING is wrong with this picture.

What the council needs to do is, to NOT monitor the good guys, but to design laws
that storngly dis-incentivise the few bad guys from using firearms in crimes. A
MANDATORY 5 or 10 years in the Slammer for gun crimes cuts the crime rates in many other jurisdictions.
-----
The FBI has stated
multiple times that there is already a large sleeper terrorist army inside the U.S.
Last week the Chief of Police testified before congress about DC preparing for the
strong possibility of a terrorist ground war in DC. Capitol Hill now looks like an
armed camp -- It IS an obvious clear & present danger but the Chief
mysteriously wants DC residents to be severely restricted in their KEEP & BEAR
Arms-Rights. She seems to look upon the citizens as part of the enemy-problem
but any terrorists will already have their own weapons when they come to town.
~
Citizens see things differently: "We the people," armed, are TRULY what the
Writers of the Constitution intended for us to be in Art. 1, Sec. 8, para. 15, and
that is the CITIZEN MILITIA. If suicide terrorists DO attact our city, ARMED
CITIZENS could be the First to counter these hostilities in our individual
neighborhoods.

By comparison, Baghdad is also an armed camp, but why are so many civilians
dieing there? It's because they've all been dis-armed! Baghdad has Draconian
gun control! IS THAT what the Chief wants here?

We already have examples of WHOLESALE KILLINGS in the U.S. --
COLOMBINE H/S & VA-TECH. They were "GUN FREE" zones. Killers know
it's safe for them -- Nobody shoots back -- everyone's been disarmed.

If you CARE about your city, the last thing you would want is for your family & the
rest of us to be as dis-armed & as defenseless as people in Baghdad,
Columbine High, or VA Tech -- in a mass terrorist attack.
~ -----
In Summary,
DC needs to get OUT of the business of documenting & monitoring Good Citizens
-- with your firearms regulations, and do more arresting of violent criminals with
guns.

DC needs to eliminate the ALL shackels & constraints placed on our 2nd
Amendment rights.

What CITIZENS recognize is POLITICIANS are trying to solve a problem they don't
even understand, and worse YET, they won't even look @ the DATA from the
FBI and Justice crime figures: gun ownerships is up -- crime is down.

if Public SAFETY is truly a concern,
most DC gun regulations should be eliminated or should revert to those like VA &
NH where firearms are common, or like VT -- which has -- NO -- gun -- laws.
The FBI data base shows that those states have the -- LOWEST -- crime rates in the country.

Mr. Mendelson,
I don't understand this DC City Council -- why -- can't - DC - ALSO enjoy the
LOWEST Crime Rates in the country? Is there a reason?
~ ###

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the man on whose behalf a city's democratically enacted gun laws were scrapped and the Second Amendment was reinterpreted. Before Heller, no federal appellate court had ever struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

We could engage in a point-by-analysis of Heller's testimony, but suffice it to say that we find his argument of "criminals don't obey gun laws, so let's eliminate all gun laws" somewhat illogical. In a society without laws, there is no difference between "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" and most Americans would reject Heller's anarchical prescription. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Americans want all gun owners to undergo background checks, store firearms safely around children, and "care about the legalities of when deadly force can be used."

As for his knowledge of international affairs, if Mr. Heller thinks that civilians in Iraq have been disarmed, he hasn't studied the situation in that country very carefully. Regarding his offer to be the first line of defense against the "large sleeper terrorist army inside the U.S.," well, let's just say that someone has watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

No one ever argued with a straight face that Dick Heller was speaking for D.C. residents with his lawsuit. After all, a January 2008 Washington Post poll found that 76% of D.C. residents supported the city's handgun ban and strict firearm storage laws. His recent testimony, however, calls into question whether he was even speaking rationally.

Comments

[Thirdpower]

This really says alot about the public support for 'gun control'. Josh can't even make the rent.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v20/i23/23004401.htm

[kaveman1]

I like this nugget...

"Five members of our seven-person staff now spend a majority of their time working from home....

We decided not to plunge into an entirely virtual plan in large part because we sponsor two to three interns at any given time..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

A seven person staff and 2-3 are interns?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Damnit, I just pissed myself.

[djkrlsn]

Grits-- if you want what James Madison says about the militia--he covers it well in the Federalist Papers--you have read the Federalist Papers haven't you? I know your usual opponents have supplied you with the definition of "well regulated militia" used in 1789-- and it is much bigger than just the National Guard and the reserves. In terms of Richard Heller's statement--it was dead on in terms of the crime and gun problem in DC. The only people the law affects are the ones that are not inclined to break the law.

[Thirdpower]

And how exactly does that change the statement that self-defense w/ personal firearms was considered?

Oh, right, it doesn't.

Note how Jade no longer wants to talk about Miller since he will only respond to one question out of several in a single post.

The FACT that Miller was considered part of the militia and that it was the type of firearm in dispute.

But facts are inconvenient things when they don't fit the anti's worldview.

[CaseyTool]

Note how touchy Thirdpower becomes when his dishonesty is exposed.

Let's review the full context of Adam's quote:

"[T]he militia then must all obey the sovereign majority, or divide, and part follow the majority, and part the minority. This last case is civil war; but until it comes to this, the whole militia may be employed by the majority in any degree of tyranny and oppression over the minority. The constitution furnishes no resource or remedy; nothing affords a chance of relief but rebellion and civil war: if this terminates in favor of the minority, they will terrorize in their turns, exasperated by revenge, in addition to ambition and avarice; if the majority prevail, their domination becomes more cruel, and soon ends in one despot. It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens , to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense , or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man— is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. "

Thus, Thirdpower's claims are rendered both inaccurate and dishonest.

[Thirdpower]

Oh look, Jade selectively chose which part of the quote to use as well. Here's how it continues"

This truth is acknowledged by our author, when he says,
" The arms of the commonwealth should be
lodged in the hands of that part of the people
which are firm to its establishment."

He also removed the sentences before that which were stating that the militia, when called up, was under the authority of Congress and not the states to maintain integrity and prevent civil war. Nothing about the people not rising up against tyranny.

Poor Jade.

[djkrlsn]

Jade--I see you are lying, dodging and ducking as badly here as you do on Paul's blog. You have yet to explain your support for NOPD assaulting innocent octogenarians and stealing guns from occupied houses and cars leaving New Orleans after Katrina.

[Thirdpower]

Poor Jade.
When the facts don't fit his own little worldview, he just dismisses them as unimportant.

Since the fact that it wasn't in dispute that Miller was part of the militia, which is made up of the populace bearing arms supplied by themselves, it goes to show who made up the militia. The people.

But the only thing the anti's can rely on is a truncated quote from Miller to justify their attempts to distort the original meaning.

[CaseyTool]

Sadly, Thirdpower doesn't understand the function of the Supreme Court.

It does not rule on individual cases; instead, it rules on matters of constitutional interpretation. I realize this distinction may be quite lost on Thirdpower and beyond his educational ken. Therefore, I will try to explain this difference bearing in mind Thirdpower's limitations.

Cases are referred to and accepted by the SC on the basis of their constitutional uncertainty or murkiness. As Antonin Scalia noted, the SC doesn't decide individual cases, they interpret the constitutional basis behind such cases. This is why Thirdpower's hectoring insistence on whether Miller was established to have been part of the militia or not is so..misinformed and ignorant. In truth, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the SC held in US v Miller was that a right to firearms was limited to the "well-regulated militia."

Per usual, Thirdpower quotes John Adams but neglects to note his quote is truncated so as to disguise the context. In reality, Adams is talking about insurrection or civil war and his quote actually is a warning against the general population taking up firearms.

[djkrlsn]

Jadetheliar--Heller took up the case because the 9th Circuis said the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual RKBA, the DC Court of Appeals as well as the 5th Circuit said there was an individual RKBA

[Thirdpower]

Grits, why do you refuse to answer my questions?

So the 2A was written in 1939 by US v Miller? When I referenced original intent, you replied w/ a case 150yrs later.

Was Miller's membership in the militia disputed? Can you tell me what was in dispute? Can you tell me what was said by the defendant in Miller?

[GritsJr]

I believe I provided you with a direct quote from the ruling in Miller which really said it all:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

As for original intent, I'd love to talk about that. Please show me a single piece of evidence from Madison's drafting history of the Amendment that talks about individual self-defense with a firearm in the home. Or for that matter, from the legislative history of the Amendment from Congress. You might have a problem, though, because there isn't any.

[Thirdpower]

Pt II

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

But lets play your pigeon-hole game. Madison opposed efforts to require the states to arm the militia because then the states could choose to do so. Instead, the individual was required to bring arms supplied by themselves and in common use at the time.

Hey, that's also in US v Miller. I wonder why you didn't include that part?

So it's clear that the FF's considered self-defense to be just common sense and that nobody in their right mind would try and claim that it wasn't a natural right.

[Thirdpower]

Pt I

Actually no, your quote answered NONE of the questions asked. I'll ask them again.

Was Miller's membership in the militia disputed? Can you tell me what was in dispute? Can you tell me what was said by the defendant in Miller?

Of course you have to try and limit the discussion on the original intent of the 2A. Not that I'm really surprised. The 2A was considered an INDIVIDUAL right from the beginning.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

[vespasian1]

If you need a permission slip from the government to protect yourself and your family, in your own home, I feel sorry for you.

There are several quotes from the Founders re: the right to self protection. Do a little research. We're tired of doing it all for you.

[djkrlsn]

Grits--so you are tellling me that there is no right to effective self defense? SInce per Heller there is a right to own common firearms for lawful purposes--I would say armed self defense is covered. What the 2nd amendment does not cover--the 9th does. Like I told Kelli and Brokentool--no true progressive argues for restriction of the BOR.

[djkrlsn]

so it looks like Miller was in the unorganized militia since you are not disputing that point

[GritsJr]

The really scary thing about this is that the attorney who brought this case, Robert Levy, has been very publicly open about the fact that he hand-picked the plaintiffs in this case after a thorough vetting process. Check out this Levy interview from June 2008!
***
Levy didn’t argue the lawsuit he helped build. He was the Oz, the man behind the curtains, putting together the case with two lawyers and six plaintiffs — three men and three women, four whites and two blacks — plaintiffs whose cases would best support his arguments that D.C.’s gun ban was unconstitutional. He wanted no gun nuts.

“They’re looney tunes,” he said in an interview weeks before Thursday’s ruling as he sat on the lanai of his third-floor condo, overlooking The Ritz.

The plaintiffs were carefully selected based on their diversity — economic, gender, race and age — and their lack of a criminal record. By the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs he and Neilly chose were whittled down to one, Dick Anthony Heller, an armed, private security guard who works in the district, but couldn’t bring his gun home.
***

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/26/naples-man-behind-major-supreme-court-decision-str/

So let me get this straight...Levy carefully screened his potential plaintiffs to weed out "gun nuts" who are "looney tunes" and he ended up with...Dick Heller.

I wonder who he rejected!

[Thirdpower]

Just goes to show, since the facts are against you, resorting to personal attacks is the last resort.

[GritsJr]

Sadly for you, what was resorted to...again...was direct quotations from the individuals who brought this case to court.

And given Mr. Heller's testimony above, the question of who Levy actually rejected in his elaborate plaintiff vetting process is a fair one. Is any sane American supposed to believe Mr. Heller is not a "gun nut" after reading that testimony?

[leeannethethird]

Well, then, he was a straw man for the Supreme Court in its decision in favor of the right of individuals to own arms and rejecting the argument that the right to keep and bear arms was tied to service in a state militia.

Are "persons" and "individuals" synonymous? If so, do corporations have the right to keep and bear arms? They could have the motive and certainly the money for private armies. What's to stop them? They don't hesitate to fire you on a dime, then confiscate your files and call up security to escort you out of the building. If they have the chutzpah to hold up Congress and demand the entire treasury be handed over for them to do with as they wish secretly with no oversight or grievance mechanism -why, they're capable of anything. No?

[Ohio9]

Nice try, but corporations don't qualify as individual citizens. What makes you think they do?

[Ohio9]

Horowitz: "No one ever argued with a straight face that Dick Heller was speaking for D.C. residents with his lawsuit."

But he was speaking for the vast majority of the American people. Polls show that over 70% of the American population believe the second amendment protects an indvidual right to bear arms. In addition, the majority of legislators and the presidential canidates of both main political parties strongly endorsed the Heller verdict.

From from being "irrational", Heller's stance on the second amendment is in the mainstream majority.

[GritsJr]

The notion that 70% of Americans would agree with Mr. Heller's above testimony (let alone find it sane) is a stretch for even you guys.

Let's also be perfectly clear about the poll data that you're siting...

That same March 2008 poll by the Washington Post also found that 50% of Americans thought it was more important to control gun ownership as opposed to the 47% who thought protecting the rights of Americans to own guns was more important.

More importantly, when the pollers asked "Would you support or oppose a law in your state that bans private handgun ownership and requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded or have a trigger lock?" 59% of respondents indicated they would support such measures, as opposed to 38% who said they would oppose them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/16/GR2008031600072.html

[Ohio9]

All the same, 72% of those polled felt believed the second amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms. This goes along with McCain and Obama, who both endorsed the Supreme Court verdict (Along with over 300 legislators).

[GEErnst]

The only reason there is a claim to an individual right to be privately armed is that the gun lobby led by the NRA works very hard and successfully to defeat any laws that would apply to the lawless because the same laws would apply against the "armed populace at large"
http://www.potowmack.org/nraperp.pdf
The NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas"
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappd.html#ak47
and others with insurrectionist fantasies.
The DC gov had no business taking Parker/Heller to the Supreme Court. The low court opinion fell back on the original constitutional militia concept based on conscription--a coerced civic obligation. The first business of any local jurisdiction is to address the illegal traffic between and among jurisdictions. That can only be accomplished with a national policy of registration and reporting of private sales. The federal government need do little more. Nothing else will accomplish anything. The ostensible constitutional purpose can be militia call up but the goal will be accomplished. Will Heller and his handgun be available for militia call up, to be commanded by militia officers, to enforce the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. The gun lobby led by the NRA would fight viciously any attempts to implement the Parker conclusions. The DC Council will continue to tinker with failed policies rather pursue a national policy.

GEErnst
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html

[Thirdpower]

Sorry G. National registration is illegal as per the FOPA.

The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense. The NRA opposes the "Parker" decision? Obviously you didn't even read the decision.

[djkrlsn]

This is a reminder to Grits--it was Washington DC that took the appelate decision in Parker to the Supreme Court (when the name changed to Heller)

[CrittersRTasty]

The only reason there is a claim to an individual right to be privately armed is that that is precisely the intent of the second amendment.

[Ohio9]

GEErnst, you keep showing up on every gun control article and repeating the same disproven propaganda. It's really getting tiresome.

The Heller decition did not endorse gun registration. It only said that registration is could be implemented if we chose to do so. Weather or not we choose to create a gun registry system is entirely up to legislators in the democratic process. As such, they can choose to reject a registration system (as most states have) and still "Implement the Parker conclusions".

The NRA and other gun rights supporters don't oppose laws that "disarm the lawless". On the contrary, they strongly support them. What they oppose is laws that disarm the lawful, which is exactly what the Washington DC handgun ban did, and why it was unconstitutional.

[GritsJr]

Heller is completely irrational, and that's probably a compliment.

THIS is the guy who Scalia and his four justices changed the meaning of the amendment for?

Wow.

[Thirdpower]

Hi Grits. Of course the fact that they just reiterated the original meaning while all Horowitz et al have left are personal attacks and ad hominems.

[GritsJr]

Last I checked, US v. Miller (1939) talked about "military equipment" and the "common defense" (oh, and also that bit about the Amendment's purpose being for the "preservation" and "efficiency" of well-regulated militias), but nice try.

And posting a man's public testimony is not an ad hominem attack. If the words weren't completely irrational, actually, it would be a service to Heller (helping him spread his word).

But the words are completely irrational and what it reveals is that Heller, from the get-go, only spoke for a lunatic fringe in this country.

[CrittersRTasty]

First of all, no one changed the meaning of the second amendment. The SCOTUS simply (and finally) clarified and confirmed the fact that the second amendment safeguards the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Secondly, it doesnt matter if Heller wants a gun to fight off an invasion from venus. His views regarding terrorists or criminals frankly have no part of the court case. It was D.C's infringement of that basic right guaranteed by the constitution that was the basis of the suit.

[EdSilverman]

So, GritsJr just how is this man irrational? Explain yourself.

I think you just don’t see things the way he does. But to defend your view you feel the need to call him irrational. Maybe you just can’t get your mind to understand just how complex the world is around you.

Here is a little tid bit I bet you can’t fully appreciate. The main focus of the FBI these days is anti-terrorism and the vast majority of its personnel are tasked to that activity. The work they are doing is largely domestic surveillance. So, much work was being done that the bureau created a surveillance division. In all the bureaus years it has never had a division that specialized in surveillance…until now.

[GritsJr]

Division or not, are you actually implying that the FBI has never engaged in large-scale domestic surveillance before 9/11?

Do you know anything about the Hoover-era FBI?

[Thirdpower]

Josh claims Heller stated :"criminals don't obey gun laws, so let's eliminate all gun laws"

But, looking at what was actually said:

"most DC gun regulations should be eliminated or should revert to those like VA &
NH where firearms are common, or like VT -- which has -- NO -- gun -- laws."

VT still has to follow FEDERAL laws so that's not "all" now, is it Josh?

Really. Does one need to be an expert in international affairs and law to recognize an infringement on ones rights?

There's a reason Josh won't "engage in a point-by-analysis of Heller's testimony", it's because to do so would bring to light all the fabrications and misinformation groups like the "Coalition to Stop Handgun Ownership" need to keep themselves in existence.

[twhjohnson]

There is no reason to engage in point by point analysis of Heller's testimony. It speaks for itself. The leading advocate for taking DC's gun laws off the books thinks that there is a terrorist sleeper army in our nations capitol and that there is a lot of violence in Baghdad because of draconian gun control laws (fact: private citizens are allowed to possess assault weapons). It is insane that the Supreme Court sided with a conspiracy theorist with factually incorrect views over the wishes of the majority of DC residents and DC local government.

Secondly, you are putting a disingenuous spin on a fair summation of Heller's thoughts on gun regulation. It is clear that Heller believes that gun laws should be taken off the books because he believes that law abiding citizens face obstacles in acquiring firearms (not likely considering the astounding rate of gun ownership in the US).

[Thirdpower]

Wow. You really don't understand the concept of a civil rights suit. Do you?

Heller's personal opinions weren't what was on trial. It was a violation of the 2A. That you care more about what Heller thinks than about civil rights is what's scary.

[twhjohnson]

Also a quick internet search reveals that the "Coalition to Stop Handgun Ownership" is not an organization. You have completely fabricated the name of a non-existent gun control organization. Get your facts straight.

[Thirdpower]

Oh, get a grip. It's called sarcasm.

[ianto94]

Get serious Josh. That column is even beneath you. Dick's not advocating no gun laws. He's pointing out that criminal obtain guns without respect to the law. As far as Red Dawn is concerned, let's analogize instead to LA during the Rodney King riots or what happened to civil authority during Katrina. Dick's discussion of the potential for terrorism may or may not be exaggerated. But the point he makes that in the event of a severe terrorist attack -- which many fear could occur in the nations capital at some point in the future -- citizens are likely to be on their own, is spot on. If the best case you can make is based on ridicule, you have a pretty sorry case.

[twhjohnson]

How is it beneath Horwitz's dignity to quote public testimony submitted into the record? If anyone should be ashamed it is the Supreme Court and the DC Court of Appeals for allowing a man with such outrageous beliefs to lead the effort to overturn DC's gun laws. Heller's testimony demonstrates that his views our out of touch with mainstream thought on gun laws and even out of touch with reality.

[Thirdpower]

So being 'mainstream' is a requirement for civil rights suits?