Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Info, pictures, advice...
Post Reply
User avatar
papabear
Global moderator
Global moderator
Posts: 2080
Joined: January 22nd, 2006, 1:16 am
Location: Madisonville, Kentucky

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by papabear »

Found this on another site, there are some very interesting thoughts brought out in this.


Yesterday, the highest court in the nation heard the final arguments
regarding what will undoubtedly be one of the most significant cases
heard in our lifetimes - or theirs.

The nine justices have the opportunity to rule on the meaning of the
Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is a fundamental principal of our nation, yet it lacks prior legal prece-
dents that test its core meaning.

It is not hyperbole to say the outcome of this case will become the
precedent upon which all other future decisions on the Second
Amendment will be based. Neither is it overstating the matter to say
this case may become the case upon which this Supreme Court is
judged, and remembered for the remainder of the history of our nation.

The twenty-seven oddly arranged words using an outdated punctuation
style that make up the Second Amendment have caused no amount of
discussion, debate and legal wrangling over the past forty-plus years,
but nothing compares to the magnitude of what occurred yesterday in
the Supreme Court

Case Number 07-290, The District of Columbia, Et Al, V. Dick Anthony
Heller is a case carefully structured with the specific intent of comp-
elling the nine Justices to consider a “threshold question”: does the
Second Amendment pertain to an individual right to gun ownership
or does it simply pertain to military service?

There is much at stake in this case. Individual ownership of firearms
is a bedrock foundation of this nation, despite any contortions designed
to make it appear otherwise. As Justice Kennedy observed yesterday,
it held to be a “preexisting right” – one that predates others. Several
states, including Montana, based their contracts of statehood on the
assurance that the federal government would never impinge on the
right to keep and bear arms wasn’t lost on the jurists.

The longstanding nature to this “right” is the major thorn in the side of
firearms opponents. And despite the sentiments of the activist judges
across the country, the Supreme Court will probably not disagree with
that interpretation.

Should that be the case, proponents of the individual rights interpret-
ation of the Second Amendment owe a huge debt to a man who
doesn’t even own a firearm –and says he has neither a need nor
desire to own one.

Robert Levy, a slight, soft-spoken lawyer with unshakable libertarian
views, has spent five years time and a not-inconsiderable amount of
his own money to see this case reach the Supreme Court.

“The case has been structured so they have to confront the threshold
question,” Levy says, “I think they have to come to grips with that.”

Others agree. "The U.S. Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm
an individual’s Second Amendment right to self-defense,” says Senior
United States Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, “ Though
gun-control advocates have questioned this through the years,
Congress never has."

And on Monday, self-described black advocate organization Project 21,
distributed a statement with this statement from Project 21 fellow
Deneen Borelli: “as a black American, I would be horrified to hear a
state or local government enacted legislation or regulation that gutted
the 13th Amendment’s prohibit on slavery or the 15th Amendment’s
guarantee that all races could vote. Why aren’t more people outraged
when the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee that individuals can protect
themselves is infringed?”

“In Washington, criminals know that an unarmed citizen is easy prey.
Right now, the criminals are winning because the city’s gun ban is
effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner,”
Borelli added. “The lower court verdict to restore power to the people
to legally possess a suitable firearm will make criminals think twice
about their actions, and it is something the Supreme Court should affirm.”

In short, a normally dissimilar group of Americans from a variety
of races, sexual orientations and geographic locations, speaks with
a loud and unified voice on the matter of personal firearms ownership.
In making their case to the Supreme Court in their “friend of the court”
briefs, they cite a variety of reasons, from self-protection from hate
crimes to the foundation of contracts of statehood. But they have all
reached on conclusion: not to overturn the District of Columbia’s
firearms ban would fly in the face of a founding principal of this nation.

As Alan Gura, attorney for Dick Heller argued, the District of Columbia “
simply doesn’t trust the people to defend themselves in their homes.”

In stark contrast, the proponents of the District’s gun ban have largely
relied emotional appeals. They have asserted positions that advance
the idea that violent crime is the fault of the gun, not the criminal.
Likewise, they would have the general public believe that simply
making firearms illegal would stop violent crime.

To that end, they have generally argued their case in the court of
public opinion. In that venue, it’s difficult to logically counter their
arguments whilst a hysterical mother is wailing at the tragic loss of
a child in a drive-by shooting.

In yesterday’s sessions, however, the histrionics were forced to yield
to points of law. Oral arguments before the United States Supreme
Court don’t make great theatre nor offer up tightly-formed soundbites
for the evening newscasts. Those were carefully crafted on the steps
of the Supreme Court building afterwards. The arguments do, however,
shed light on the magnitude of the importance this case has to all
Americans; today and in the future.

It may, in fact, become another a one-word synonym (“Heller”) for a
landmark decision. Regardless, it will become the base upon which
future laws will be built or old laws dismantled.

That fact wasn’t lost on Dick Heller, the named defendant in the case.

Speaking with him on the Supreme Court steps after the arguments -
and his long question-and-answer period with the media, I asked him
how he felt about “his” lawsuit.

“It’s a simple case to me,” Heller said, “It is wrong for the government
to tell me that it is OK for me to have a gun during my work hours, but
illegal for me to have a gun when the only thing I want to protect is me.”

At that point, a reporter interjected: “the Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M.
Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered
violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?”

The initial answer certainly wasn’t expected – Dick Heller laughed.
Ruefully.

Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza,
surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, “the Mayor
doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”... “He doesn’t walk on the street
like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police
officers as bodyguards – to keep him safe. But he says that I don’t
have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like
he thinks the streets are safe?”

There was no follow-up question.

Robert Levy, the man behind the case in both conviction and cash
for the last five years, told me he felt “gratified” that the case had
finally come to this point. But mainly, I think, he looked tired. Even
knowing he’d probably answered it a hundred times, I had to ask one
question of him: “what led you, a non-gun person, to do this?”

Thoughtfully, Levy replied: “It was a confluence of events. A horrifying
violent crime rate in the District of Columbia in conjunction with an
equally bad law that took the right of self-defense away from the
residents.”

Looking me in the eye, he said simply, “I had no choice.”

Now, we can only hope that the United States Supreme Court sees
that it has no choice but to rule that, like the other Amendments to the
Constitution, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an
individual to keep AND bear arms.

But no one can call that outcome with any certainty.

Prior to the Arguments, many observers had Justice Kennedy being
the key Justice should a swing vote be needed to break a 4-4 tie.

After yesterday’s occasionally questioning of Walter Dellinger, Solicitor
General Clement and Alan Gura, however, it may be that Kennedy
agrees with the lower court ruling. He quickly went on record as be-
lieving the scope of the second amendment was in two parts. The first,
reaffirmed “the existence and importance” of the state militias as
contained in the Constitution itself. The second, Kennedy said, means
that “in addition” there is a right to bear arms- something he later referred
to as a “general right.”

If that’s the case, it could spell trouble for the District of Columbia’s
efforts to revive its handgun ban.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ comments regarding the efficacy of trigger
locks in a life-threatening situation, Judge Samuel Alito’s skeptical line
of questioning regarding the DC ban and Justice Antonin Scalia’s vocal
support of gun rights would seem to point toward their inclination to
adopt the individual interpretation as well. As is his custom, Justice
Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, but has gone
on record in favor of the individual right interpretation.

That would leave only Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Souter’s votes in
support of the District’s gun ban. While all of us await a decision, the
nine Justices will deliberate, research and weigh the facts and impli-
cations of Heller. When they are satisfied with their decision – and not
before – they will let us know the fate of the Second Amendment.
POINT SHOOTER
volfandan
Senior member
Senior member
Posts: 342
Joined: July 17th, 2007, 11:27 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by volfandan »

Go Heller! What a great rebuttal to a stupid question asked by the reporter!
saands
Senior member
Senior member
Posts: 263
Joined: November 17th, 2005, 12:09 pm

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by saands »

I had the opportunity to be part of a small group talking to Justice Kennedy a couple of years ago. He was asked what the biggest challenge of being a SC Justice was and he responded to the tune of: "Sometimes doing the right thing in terms of the Constitution means that you let someone off the hook when it is obvious that they are guilty ... those cases are the tough ones" The facts around HELLER made me hopeful that he wouldn't have any trouble with supporting the lower court and after hearing Kennedy's line of questioning, I feel that he will come down on the side of reaffirming the lower court's decision. My only hope is that they don't cop out and re-affirm it without somehow addressing the individual rights issue.

Saands
himmel
Veteran member
Veteran member
Posts: 733
Joined: January 30th, 2006, 4:21 pm
Location: East Texas

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by himmel »

I think they will have to address the "individual" vs "corporate" right issue--but they can still "cop out" I think, in other ways. Last I heard, Kennedy was playing it close to the vest, not much indication which way he would go. Recall, he was the one who invoked the 'international community" to justify throwing out a death-penalty case--an untenable position in construing our Constitution, but one he took anyway
gunneyrabbit
Forum supporter
Forum supporter
Posts: 1221
Joined: February 5th, 2007, 8:52 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by gunneyrabbit »

It is humbling to read the thoughts of the great thinkers of our time. I was also impressed with how much common sense was used by the justices in their aired arguments during the proceedings. I have faith in the court and their interpretation of the Heller case and the second amendment rights of individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones.
G.R.
Last edited by gunneyrabbit on March 23rd, 2008, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
drogers
Member
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: August 30th, 2006, 8:25 pm

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by drogers »

The next angle of attack has already started with various proposals to control ammunition.
michaelap
Senior member
Senior member
Posts: 278
Joined: August 29th, 2007, 10:08 am
Location: NE OHIO

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by michaelap »

I certainly hope I am wrong but I am not optimistic here. I am hoping for the best but I am scared for the worst. Remember if anyone has noticed (or cares) the supreme court has let us down a long time ago and it has never been fixed. Let's not be too sure here The supreme court has not earned enough trust!!
blinddog
Veteran member
Veteran member
Posts: 739
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 1:22 pm
Location: Roseburg, Or.

Thoughts on the "HELLER" Case

Post by blinddog »

Wow, to think one man, one man took up a crusade that means so much to me and every other American that believes in free rights is just numbing to me. I have nothing but respect and admiration for this gentleman.
Post Reply