DC vs. HELLER Amici for Petitioner are running away from DC

[Indy Lurker]

It seems like many of the Amici for Petitioner are not really in support of DC, but rather, are trying to insulate or distance themselves for a Dc defeat.

For example, the National Network to End Domestic Violence brief is trying to protect laws that keep guns away from folks with Domestic Violence convictions (which I happen to agree with), but doesn't really throw a lot of support behind DC banning handguns.

Several others seem to do the same thing.

[bossy22]

1. there is this misconception

that a ruling against the D.C. means that all gun laws are null and void. Its a fear mongering by the gun control sector. Any person with half a brain can figure out that laws prohibiting certain individuals from possessing fireamrs would be found constitutional

[johnbraun]

2. But the law banning new machineguns IMHO would be in danger.

I'd love to be able to buy a NIB M240 machinegun!

I'd have to get a loan against my house to pay for the ammo however. Oh well.

[bossy22]

3. true

but the laws that regulate machine guns will probably stay in place

[johnbraun]

4. Right. That's the next case.

Gura has 2 other cases on deck, written up and ready to go. One case to fight the Chicago handgun ban, and another to strike down the new machinegun prohibition.

[bossy22]

5. i think if he wins DC

chicago won't be too hard

[bossy22]

6. machine gun ban

....i dont know about that....i think the court may say no to it....but hey we never know

[EricTeri]

7. USSC doesnt have to say anything about it...

Heller can just be cited as precedent.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. Check out the Parker summary in post 14

[L1A1Rocker]

14. The summary in the Parker Decision makes the status of 86 ban very doubtful

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Of course this is what is being appealed and SCOTUS can do what ever they want. That being said many have speculated that IF Scotus affirms this in total then the 86 ban is gone on its face. Here is the relevant section: "by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty." This would mean that individuals should be able to have an M-4 at home.

[bossy22]

21. i still think

they are gonna keep the '86 ban in place.

[L1A1Rocker]

22. They might,

As SCOTUS can do what ever they want. If though, they say anything about the unorganized militia keeping arms of the same like or kind as current US issue then. . . . .

[EricTeri]

8. Dont be too sure about that either...

There is some pretty serious talk about re-visiting the 1934 NFA and Heller could well be used as precedence to gut it. After all, the 1934 NFA doesnt make them illegal, it merely applies a stiff tax to them, thereby restricting ownership by cost. When Heller reaffirms the 2nd as an INDIVIDUAL right, any artificial limitations upon that right put in place by the federal government come up for review.

[L1A1Rocker]

16. Correct

You cannot tax a right. I think the 200 dollar tax will have to go by by but I think the other regs will remain largely intact. I'd be cool with that.

Remember, prior to the 86 ban you used to see an AR-15 for sale for $800 and right next to it an M-16 for $900. Now that same M-16 is close to $20,000! It be nice to afford this things again.

[Boomer 50]

18. Not necessarily

The law that regulates possession of machine guns is the 1934 NFA. It was introduced as a taxation measure as the Congress in 1933-34 correctly deduced that any other measure would violate interstate commerce. The core of the NFA is the $200 transfer tax for most of the NFA items. For "any other weapon" classed NFA firearms, that transfer is $5.

Should SCOTUS incorporate the 2nd under the 14th, 1934 NFA is a dead duck. According to the 14th, a civil right may not have a fee, tax, or other burden applied. This will automatically invalidate the NFA, though a court challange would probably have to take place to force BATFE and Congress to do the right thing.

With the fall of the NFA, the Hughes Amendment (922 (o) or the machine gun ban) is automatically finished since the BATFE and the Government has absolutely no way of registering MG's.

This is what the Bush administration fears, as do most elected officals. They can't conceive that they may have to give up some iron gripped control.

[Turbo Teg]

13. Tell me about it.

I've wanted an MP-5SD since I was a little kid. That and an M-16 and I'm good to go. Get a couple of different barrels for it and it'll be sweet. I'm hoping that this will be the stepping stone to finaly getting Autos back. I believe and pray that I will see this law overturned in the next few years, as it is unconstitutional. On another note, does any one know about the amnesty period to register un-registered machineguns that was bieng talked about a little while ago? I haven't heard anything about it for a while so I'm figureing it's a bust?

[Indy Lurker]

10. I hope that's not the case

The question before the court is:

Does DC law violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other fire-arms for private use in their homes?

I think the folks filing the briefs just want to cover their butts, and maintain some of the gun regulations.


I don't foresee the SC authorizing select fire weapons, or allowing domestic abusers, convicted felons, or the mentally ill to own firearms.


I do see the possibility of AW bans falling, simply because there is no functional difference between a AW and any other semi-auto firearm.

[EricTeri]

11. Select fire weapons are already legal...

Convicted felons can already get their 2nd Amendment rights restored, and "mentally ill" is an extremely broad definition.

Regardless, the USSC has nothing to do with authorizing any of that.

[Indy Lurker]

12. Depends on how they rule

One of the law being reviewed is § 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited.

which covers Sawed-off shotgun, Machine gun, and short barreled rifles.

If the USSC wanted to, they could say 7-2502.02 infringes on the right to bear arms by not allowing the registration of machine guns.

That would put select fire weapons back into play.

However, as I said, I don't see that happening.

[enfield collector]

19. not 100% true, convicted felons theoretically can get there rights back,

however the mechanism for them to do so has had it's funding blocked thanks to chuck schumer.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. The summary in Parker would have

called the 86 ban into serious question. See post 14.

[Indy Lurker]

9. Even the City of Chicago is running away

Saying that DC isn't a state, so what the SC rules for DC shouldn't apply to Illinois or Chicago.

[SteveM]

20. As if Chicago is unaware of the 14th Amendment.

[Tejas]

23. Where do the antis of the

board stand on this?




MACHINE GUNS!





There, that should do the trick.

;)