Understanding Heller [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Understanding Heller


Jeff S.
07-26-2008, 22:50
Thank you Jerry for making this a sticky.

To better understand the Supreme Court Case D.C. v Heller, watch this video featuring Alan Gura, the lead attorney for Heller, who gives an insider's understanding of Heller: Alan Gura Speaks at VCDL Conference (http://www.vcdl.org/Heller/VCDL_Gura.mov)

Alan Gura seems like a bright, knowledgeable, and awesome character.

The video is very educational and watching it is a great way to understand Heller, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Here are some other Heller resources (please feel free to add!).

Another great video of Gura; interview of Gura before the Supreme Court made their decision:
Alan Gura on Reason.tv (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/437.html)

----------------------
Articles from the CATO Institute (http://www.cato.org/).

Great Recourse: CATO's webpage featuring the case: CATO Gunban Page (http://www.cato.org/gunban)

An Essay by Robert Levy (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/14/robert-a-levy/district-of-columbia-v-heller-whats-next/)
David Kopel's Reaction Essay (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/18/david-kopel/the-right-to-bear-arms-and-sensible-gun-laws/)
Reaction Essay by Dennis Henigan (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/16/dennis-henigan/the-heller-paradox-a-response-to-robert-levy/)

Who these men are:
Robert Levy (http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/robert-a-levy/)
David Kopel (http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/david-kopel/)
Dennis Henigan (http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/dennis-a-henigan/)
----------------------------

Every brief filed from the begging of the Case to the end:
Briefs and Pleading from Gura & Possessky (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html)

An overview of the Case from Gura and Possessky's website:
Overview (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/overview.html)

PDF of Supreme Court's Decision (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/Heller7-290.pdf)

DCguncase.com (http://dcguncase.com/blog/)
-------------------


Alan Gura is involved in a suit against Chicago, due their handgun ban, and he has a website about it. This is the Case to incorporate the Second Amendment.

Chicagoguncase (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/)
-----------------------

HELLER ROUND TWO!

PDF of Complaint (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/0728heller.pdf)

News article about Heller's new lawsuit (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/07/28/breaking-heller-files-new-gun-case-takes-aim-at-semiauto-ban/)


---------------------------------------

Here are some specific Glocktalk threads:
Chicago lays out legal strategy (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=901155)
DC refuses to register Heller's handgun (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=899639)
Reasonable Restrictions: Kiss Them Goodbye (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=899376)
Heller Commemorative Revolver (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=899217)
That darn DC ban is a bunch of bull (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=891803)
DC v. Heller: juxtaposition of Majority v. Minority opinions (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=894030)
Heller is a risky epidemiologic experiment (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=894178)
Short Statements After Arguments (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=845049)
----------------------

Akhil Reed Amar:

PDF of Amar's Paper: Heller, HLR, and Holistic Legal Reasoning (http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf)

Who is Akhil Reed Amar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar)


As I research the Case and the pending Cases, I'll add to this page. I'm eager for more information, so please add any resources that you may have. Thank you.
-----------------------------------

UPDATE 3-2-09

Heller (the man, not the case) is about the file another suit very soon. I'll try to keep you updated. Here is a thread from AR15.com, started by a person who apparently is a prime source.

Heller to file suit against DC (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=837096&page=1)


Furthermore, there is an update from ChicagoGunCase (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/).

In the Chicago Case, the Appellant's and the Amici's briefs are in; I'll analyze them in a post below.



~Thanks Syclone

Jeff S.
07-27-2008, 16:44
Combined.

Syclone538
07-27-2008, 22:55
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=845049

Here is another link to add. It is a short statement he made not long after the arguments.

Jeff S.
07-28-2008, 14:16
Gun Ban Plaintiff Dick Heller Files New Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON — The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban has filed a new federal lawsuit against the city.

In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that the city's new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia's unusual ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semiautomatic handguns.

The suit also claims that the city's regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self defense in the home.

The Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban June 26. The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392705,00.html

ISOM
10-21-2008, 07:09
There is a great deal of CASE LAW in the Supreme Court's decision. That means a lot to wade through! The decision was that each individual is allowed to possess. For some reason Washington DC just can not read and comprehend the law/decision.

calbobber
10-24-2008, 12:24
Thanks for posting the video.

Apocalypse_Now
01-03-2009, 21:38
I understand Heller

It allows you have have a single shot .22 handgun in your home

I am tired of seeing compromisers represent us and our liberties.. this lawyer is one of them, handing away our military weapons right. The founders had cannons, grenades, mortars and more, all considered arms, all types being in private hands and all considered to be so essential that Lexington, Concord and the American Revolution began over this issue, when General Gage ordered troops to confiscate arms privately and publicly held at Concord, including cannons

This Heller decision flies directly in the face of Miller vs US. It was a disaster

Jeff S.
01-16-2009, 16:49
I understand Heller

It allows you have have a single shot .22 handgun in your home

I am tired of seeing compromisers represent us and our liberties.. this lawyer is one of them, handing away our military weapons right. The founders had cannons, grenades, mortars and more, all considered arms, all types being in private hands and all considered to be so essential that Lexington, Concord and the American Revolution began over this issue, when General Gage ordered troops to confiscate arms privately and publicly held at Concord, including cannons

This Heller decision flies directly in the face of Miller vs US. It was a disaster



I can understand your frustration, as I myself do not completely like the results from the decision. I would have liked a more direct ruling from the Supreme Court, as they tip-toed some issues. However, The Supreme Court usually, almost certainly, always works in such a fashion. Indeed, it is the prescribed, unwritten rule that they do so.

Apocalypse, the Heller decision allows nothing. Remember, laws do not allow; they merely forbid. As such, the decision addressed the unconstitutional use of governmental power (that government does not not have the power to ban pistols, or to require arms to be kept inoperable).

Lastly, Apocalypse, you seem to be relishing in a vast, illogical misconception: that reality is defined by the way things ought to be. Reality is what reality is. You and I both know what the Second Amendment is, what it protects, and why it was cannoned. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is not reality; it is a written symbol of a liberty long since unwanted (or at least not respected). Our country has been steadily abandoning the right. Proof being the pudding. The Decision reached by the Court helped overturn common trends. It is that simple.

Let me preach this to you in another significant way. As I've repeatedly stated, I've taken nearly every Political Science and ConLaw class I could get my hands on to, and not one (NOT ONE) teacher nor textbook referred to the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. At the very least, Heller changed this.

The battle is far from finished. No, Heller was not perfect, nor would I call it a gold standard as far as the ruling is concerned. It left open many issues that can only be answered by future litigation. However, the decision accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish. And for that, we as gun owners ought to be thankful. The essence of the decision: individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms for private purposes, including self-defense.

Lastly, Apocalypse, your citing Miller as good law astonishes me. It leads me to believe you either have a grudge against the Heller decision, or that you are unfamiliar with Miller (or perhaps both). There was no standing in Miller, and it is quite unfathomable that the Supreme Court even made a ruling in that particular case, as far as I'm concerned. If you had simply read the dicta from Heller you'd understand why, as they mention the fallacy known as Miller.

Give Heller a read-through. It may bless you with a bit of optimism.

Syclone538
01-17-2009, 02:47
Every time I talk to someone in person about Heller, I ask them if they understand Miller. I haven't had anyone say they did.

Miller basically said the .gov could restrict a short barrel shotgun because it had no militia use, even though the military used shotguns for trench warfare in WW1. Now you would think because thompsons and BARs clearly have a militia use that they could not restrict those, but they were restricted by the same law that Miller upheld, because they simply were not mentioned by the .gov side, and there was no defendant/defense present.

http://www.gunlawnews.org/Miller.html

Jeff S.
01-30-2009, 16:53
Updated to include Heller, HRL, and Holistic Legal Reasoning (http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf)

Syclone538
01-30-2009, 16:57
I downloaded that pdf to my computer a while ago, but I haven't got around to reading it.

Jeff S.
01-30-2009, 17:15
I downloaded that pdf to my computer a while ago, but I haven't got around to reading it.


It's pretty good. In fact, I really enjoyed it. He offers a defense of self-defense and firearm ownership that I've never even considered. I disagreed with him only on a few slight points. However, the ending seemed rather arbitrary, unnecessary, and random (he puts in a little plug for Obama). However, other than the last few pages, the paper is a worthwhile read.

Edge
02-10-2009, 07:19
Alan is speaking February 21 in Springfield IL at ISRA banquet. I plan to be there.

http://www.isra.org/calendar/annualmeeting-2009-web.pdf

FWIW: In an ideal world, the ruling would have been stronger, incorporated 14th, etc.; but there is a whole bunch of anti-gun people right now bemoaning that they just lost by 1 vote. I'm thankful for the win (even as it is) and fearful what may come.

Apocalypse_Now
02-20-2009, 17:10
Lastly, Apocalypse, you seem to be relishing in a vast, illogical misconception: that reality is defined by the way things ought to be. Reality is what reality is.

I'm certainly glad the Founders did not share your opinion of "what reality is"..

If they had, you would be a British subject

Jeff S.
02-20-2009, 17:29
I'm certainly glad the Founders did not share your opinion of "what reality is"..

If they had, you would be a British subject



They had a precise understanding of the reality in which they existed; it was not wishful thinking that won them a revolution.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: "To control nature, we must obey nature."


To grasp reality is not to give into epathy (to view reality as unworkable). To rework reality one must work within the laws of nature, which is, afterall, science as we know it. Political reality is not shaped by what you and I know what ought to be. We don't have to accept modern political realities, but we must know them to change them.

Apocalypse_Now
02-20-2009, 19:56
They had a precise understanding of the reality in which they existed; it was not wishful thinking that won them a revolution.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: "To control nature, we must obey nature."


To grasp reality is not to give into epathy (to view reality as unworkable). To rework reality one must work within the laws of nature, which is, afterall, science as we know it. Political reality is not shaped by what you and I know what ought to be. We don't have to accept modern political realities, but we must know them to change them.

I believe trying to regain our Republic via political and legal means is now a 100% lost cause, exactly as the Founders came to understand when they penned the Declaration of Independence

I highly recommend all of you read that document

They knew when words directed at their oppressors were useless and so do I.

Continue to spit into the typhoon, I do respect your endurance in this regard, but I will be taking another route

Jeff S.
02-20-2009, 21:08
I believe trying to regain our Republic via political and legal means is now a 100% lost cause, exactly as the Founders came to understand when they penned the Declaration of Independence.



I see. Perhaps you grasp reality better than I, and, if so, I apologise for the harshness of my earlier words. For current events shape my optimism into something which deserves spite: illogical thought.

For I grasp firmly the manner in which our court system works, and therefore applaud the Heller decision for what it is, not for what I wish it to be. Then again, compromise never leads to more liberty, and I too have made the claim that our Republic is lost to democracy, making any legal victory moot. A slave is a slave regardless of a court decision. At times a man needs to sober and take his own advice: reality is what it is, not what we wish it to be.

We shall see...

Jeff S.
02-27-2009, 18:50
Alan is speaking February 21 in Springfield IL at ISRA banquet. I plan to be there.





Any update?

Jeff S.
03-02-2009, 18:16
3-2-09

The NRA case against Chicago and surrounding districts has been combined with Gura & Possessky's case.


G&P Appellant Brief, PDF (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/appellants_brief_074244final.pdf)

NRA's Appellant Brief, PDF (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nra_opening_brief.pdf)

You can find the Amici Curiae Briefs here (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/).


I have read Gura's brief, and it is very good. He does take a jab at the NRA's brief, and I'm not exactly sure why, but there is a difference in interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I'll read the NRA brief to get their side.

CONCLUSION: Defendant is bound to respect Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by the Fourteenth Amendment. There being no factual dispute, the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for Plaintiffs. (Emphasis Added)

He is going after incorporation.

dugo
03-11-2009, 13:51
Anybody seen any further advancement of the idea argued in the Heller dissent (to which they gave enough space to be scary...!) about how the Bill of Rights does not contain a right of self-defense, implying that that means there is no such right?

Of course, the Bill of Rights was put together for the purpose of protecting some of the pre-existing rights that were a natural part of being human, "God-given" if you will, and not to create rights or be an exclusive list of all the rights people were to have -- BUT: if some folks can go on for decades insisting the 2d was not an individual right, and have so many people begin to believe it, I am concerned about how much headway could be made with this other disingenious bologny.

Edge
03-24-2009, 07:57
Any update?

Sorry for not providing one earlier. He gave a great presentation, answered questions until there weren't any more, and got a standing ovation if memory serves. He posts updates on his chicago gun case website which is referenced earlier. It was worth the fairly long drive to Springfield just to hear him.

Eagle22
04-06-2009, 14:03
Decision

On June 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_26), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008), by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia), writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference">[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-30)</sup> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference">[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-31)</sup>
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:


that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) and intrinsically for defense against tyranny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny), based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation);
that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia), which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_%28United_States%29)" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
that none of the Supreme Court's precedents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) (1875), Presser v. Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois) (1886), nor United States v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) (1939).

However, "[l]ike most rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right), the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In a footnote following this paragraph, Justice Scalia stated that this list is not exhaustive.
Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun) ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense)". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_lock) is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr.) and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_M._Kennedy), Clarence Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) and Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito_Jr.)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


some important notations:

1. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) and intrinsically for defense against tyranny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny),'

2. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia), which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;'

3. the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_lock) is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".

Jeff S.
11-15-2009, 21:01
From www.chicagoguncase.com:

By Alan Gura

"As the case ramps up, and we have more information to share, this site will become a bit more active.

On Monday, we’re going to be filing the opening brief on the merits before the Supreme Court. Check in around mid-day if you’re interested.

Also on Monday, we expect to see filed (and of course, we’ll post here) the NRA’s “Respondents’ Brief.” If this sounds strange to you, you’re right: it is an unusual set of circumstances, but one dictated by the Court’s rules.

In the lower courts, NRA and affiliated individuals filed several companion cases against Chicago and its gun-banning suburbs. The other defendants folded, but Chicago and the Village of Oak Park soldiered on. The three cases – ours (McDonald), NRA v. Chicago, and NRA v. Oak Park – were considered together in the Court of Appeals. Under the Supreme Court’s rules,

“All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in this Court . . . All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing documents.” Rule 12.6.

So NRA is a “Respondent in Support of Petitioners,” and Oak Park is a Respondent. The practical consequence is that NRA’s brief needs a red Respondent’s cover instead of a green Amicus one, their brief is due the same date as ours instead of a week later, and their word limit goes from 9,000 to 15,000.

We’re informed Oak Park will not be filing a separate brief, but will be joining Chicago’s efforts."



The briefs will be out Monday and I'll post them here.

Jeff S.
12-04-2009, 19:02
There has been more updates from Gura at Chicagoguncase.com.


Also, a very interesting article from http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/02/killing-slaughterhouse, about the upcoming McDonald v Chicago. It explains the methods used by Gura to try and incorporate the Second Amendment against the States.

Jeff S.
01-30-2010, 13:32
Alan Gura's reply brief is now posted at Chicagoguncase.com

SCmasterblaster
05-08-2010, 13:04
No matter how some folks may try to spin this, Heller is a HUGE win for the gun owners. This country went through over 200 years without having such a huge victory in support of the Second Amendment, and now we have dozens of eggheads trying to down-play it. Like it or not, this country now has confirmed Constitutional authority for most of its adult citizens to be armed with firearms. As long as I do not commit certain crimes, I shall be allowed to possess my G17 or most other firearms. This is LONG overdue!

unit1069
07-30-2011, 08:07
No matter how some folks may try to spin this, Heller is a HUGE win for the gun owners. This country went through over 200 years without having such a huge victory in support of the Second Amendment, and now we have dozens of eggheads trying to down-play it. Like it or not, this country now has confirmed Constitutional authority for most of its adult citizens to be armed with firearms. As long as I do not commit certain crimes, I shall be allowed to possess my G17 or most other firearms. This is LONG overdue!

You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)

eracer
07-30-2011, 08:55
You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)The only candidate I've seen who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is Ron Paul.

SCmasterblaster
07-30-2011, 12:02
You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)

Let us then hope to God that this country does not re-elect BHO!

ICARRY2
03-27-2014, 17:50
Tagged