Kiss Heller Goodbye?

I don't think that Wikipedia article is right . . . I read Australian news articles that said that lever-action rifles were banned. Maybe my info is wrong, but . . . .

Heller's "scope" argument was over whether the government could ban whatever gun "it" wanted, as long as others were available for use. That was the whole point of the DC law - handguns were banned, but "shotguns and rifles were available." I think that was an important detail. Moonbats routinely threw out the "you only should be allowed to own muskets" tirade whenever the argument came up pre-Heller. The Brady loons already are building the case that Ar15's (the most popular rifle in America) somehow fail Heller's "dangerous and unusual" test for banning.

Yes, Heller can be reversed soon by a later court. Look at the gay-rights line of cases. Less than 10 years after affirming the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, the USSC reversed itself. If anything should happen to Justice Kennedy, hang on because it will be bumpy ride after his replacement (Cass Sunstein?! Harold Koh?! Hillary C?!) gets on the Court.

K-Romulus said:

I don't think that Wikipedia article is right . . . I read Australian news articles that said that lever-action rifles were banned. Maybe my info is wrong, but . . . .

Click to expand...

They look to be legal. http://www.austguns.com.au/ShowAd.aspx?id=523

Heller's "scope" argument was over whether the government could ban whatever gun "it" wanted, as long as others were available for use. That was the whole point of the DC law - handguns were banned, but "shotguns and rifles were available." I think that was an important detail. Moonbats routinely threw out the "you only should be allowed to own muskets" tirade whenever the argument came up pre-Heller. The Brady loons already are building the case that Ar15's (the most popular rifle in America) somehow fail Heller's "dangerous and unusual" test for banning.

Click to expand...

I wonder how they will get around the Miller decision about the militia guns in common usage mention. I know that the Heller decision was about people not in the militia having an individual RKBA, but Miller was mentioned too in the decision for the other recognition of a RKBA.

The ACLU would never let that happen . . . . .


OH wait that's right, they only protect those rights they beleive in, selective Constitution protection.

HoChiWaWa said:

the heller decision wasn't nearly as close as many think, the 5-4 ruling was over scope, not over individual/collective rights, a more liberal court may have ruled slightly differently but they still would have ruled the 2nd amendment an individual right.

anyway, I doubt a 2nd amendment case will be back in the SCOTUS anytime soon regardless of who's on the bench.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, at leaat in the long run. The fact that the four left wing justices viewed a total ban on an entire class of weapons (handguns) and rendering all other weapons virtually useless as not violating the Second Amendment speaks volumes. Yes, the four dissenting justices claim to embrace an individual right to bear arms (wink, wink), but is this (the DC gun laws) what they refer to as “reasonable restrictions”? If so, it its pretty evident to me that if Hussein appoints a couple of Supreme Court justices, it will only be a matter of time until Heller is, at best, “watered down”, or, at worst, overturned.

Its been widely speculated what kind of justices Hussein would appoint, but they would clearly be no friend of the 2A:

http://volokh.com/posts/1204053060.shtml

Obama made some statements about these issues when he announced his decisions to vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito…

Click to expand...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...t-supreme-court-justices-at-saddleback-forum/

Long did not offer comment to McCain's response to the same question in which he said, "with all due respect," he would not have nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Click to expand...

One thing is clear is Hussein’s harsh comments against Clarence Thomas.

Black people hate Clarence Thomas, he doesn't toe the line (see Gregory Kane for a local example).

novus collectus said:

They look to be legal. http://www.austguns.com.au/ShowAd.aspx?id=523

I wonder how they will get around the Miller decision about the militia guns in common usage mention. I know that the Heller decision was about people not in the militia having an individual RKBA, but Miller was mentioned too in the decision for the other recognition of a RKBA.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, I guess I was wrong. AUS' gun laws seem to be state-by state with some similarities across state lines per Federal influence. Where do you think the lever-actions fit in that licensing regime you pasted from Wikipedia? Would they count as "pump action?"

I think the Miller test is now (1) "in common use at the time" first part and then (2) a Heller-modified "not dangerous and unusual" second part. Good luck making sense of that one.

K-Romulus said:

Oh, well, I guess I was wrong. AUS' gun laws seem to be state-by state with some similarities across state lines per Federal influence. Where do you think the lever-actions fit in that licensing regime you pasted from Wikipedia? Would they count as "pump action?"

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure lever actions are not pumps because it is similar in Western Europe where the evil pump actions seen in all the shoot em up movies when the bad guys use them got them banned just like the evil black rifles in the US. In France you can buy an AR15 in .222 or a lever action in 30-30 or even a semi auto shotgun with just a hunting license or gun club membership no problem (walk in, wlak out), but you have a .410 pump action and you are committing some kind of cardinal sin.
I am not totally sure, but I think lever actions are still legal in the UK, but of course pump actions were banned decades ago. AU probably just copied EU or UK laws when they came up with theirs.
This is why international gun control laws are so dangerous to us. All the legislators do when proposing local, state or national legislation is to basically copy other country's or state's existing laws without questionioning the purpose of them (think barrel shroud).
The Brady's have constantly referenced Canada in the past as in we need Canadian like gun laws for instance.

I think the Miller test is now (1) "in common use at the time" first part and then (2) a Heller-modified "not dangerous and unusual" second part. Good luck making sense of that one.

Click to expand...

Well the common use at the time was two fold as I read it, but I have to re read it again. I think Scalia was referring to the Miller mention as in common use by the militia at the time, and the other was for the individual right for self defense being the commonly used weapon at the time. Same jusitifcation, but not necessarily always the same guns.
The "not dangerous and unusual" is an easy test, but sucks because it can be used against full auto. Basically as I read it, if the weapon is commonly used for hunting or self/home defense like AR 15 or AK 47, then it is hard to argue they are "unusual" IMO.
If this was 1994 the antis might argue they are not commonly used for hunting or self defense and are therefore unusual, but, especially after tghe Zumbo incident, they will have a very hard time making that argument anymore. There have been a number of examples of AK variants used for home defense in the news in recent years.