410 replies to this topic

[tplane37]

GarandFan, on Dec 15 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

Tplane:

I strongly recommend telling them that you are interested in the second amendment.  If you are indeed interested in presenting other issues, you'd best to that at another time.  Keep the focus of these meetings very narrow.  Be one-minded at each meeting.  If need be, just use verbiage such as "my purpose at this meeting today is to discuss second amendment rights and gun control issues in Illinois, and specifically, how this county views the issues at play."

Don't fall for anyone's ploy to distract you....don't let them ask you about the constitution and gay rights, for example, or abortion, or taxation, or any number of other admittedly important issues....they are tangential, because those issues are not under discussion.  The second amendment is the issue for why you are there.  It might be that those in favor of gun control in general will try to distract you to other issues you are less familiar with, in the hopes that you will bumble around and appear uninformed.  Demand that focus remain on the 2A...when you have the floor, you are in charge.  And when someone else takes the floor and asks you a question about the tangential issue, you say "we are here to discuss second amendment rights and gun control issues in Illinois, and specifically, how this county views the issues at play.  Discussion of other topics are counterproductive toward resolving the issue at hand."

This I agree with. I don't want to get backed into a corner on a topic that does not pertain to the 2A and the rights it defines, nor do I intend to allow myself to be distracted off topic. I don't feel it is going to be an issue, though the Heller case does pertain to the 2A, I am not going to get into to much detail. The most I am going to say (and only if asked directly) is that I have heard that SCOTUS will possibly hear the case on March 17, 2008, but that is subject to change and there is no set date yet. Even when the Heller v. DC case is heard, the outcome will not have an imediate effect on the laws that are currently on the books. Or something to that effect. But I will try to stay on topic as much as possible, if not completely.

[GarandFan]

tplane37, on Dec 15 2007, 11:24 PM, said:

I don't feel it is going to be an issue, though the Heller case does pertain to the 2A, I am not going to get into to much detail.

Good.  I don't predict you will get distracted either, but you should be savvy enough to know that it's a possible strategy of those that don't support the resolution you support.

And, you should be well-schooled with the Heller case, and the Parker et al. case before that.  I think you've already found my letter pertaining to "why pro-2A resolutions ARE county business in Illinios."

[tplane37]

Interesting read:http://www.rutlandhe...1030/FEATURES15

Quote

Heller case a bombshell for presidential politics

December 16, 2007

By ALAN GOTTLIEB and DAVE WORKMAN

Timing is everything, and the Supreme Court's acceptance of a case regarding the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. could become the most critically timed examination of a civil right in the nation's history.

A decision will come in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, galvanizing gun rights activists who will demand more than lip service about "support for the Second Amendment" from whoever are the front-runners in both parties by that time. An affirmative ruling by the high court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms – beyond membership in a militia – will crush a cornerstone of gun control extremism, that the amendment is protective only of some mythical "collective right" of states to organize such militias. It won't put the gun control lobby out of business, but they will have to re-write their rhetoric.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, we have the makings of a "perfect storm" in the political, philosophical and constitutional arenas where gun rights are concerned.

Anti-gunners have perpetuated the myth that the high court has never held the Second Amendment protective of an individual right, when the court has referenced such an individual right several times. Likewise, they have consistently misrepresented the 1939 ruling in U.S. v. Miller as establishing a "collective right" when a thorough reading of the Miller decision shows this to be preposterous.

Politicians who have championed restrictive gun laws could face the likelihood of having their political legacies left in shambles. Others who pander to the crowds about their "support" of the Second Amendment will suddenly have to learn that you don't "support" a civil right, you "live" it. American voters will be able to pin down candidates from both major parties in the presidential and congressional races, all the way down to state and local contests, on where they stand on gun rights. It could be a watershed moment.

Philosophically, an affirmative ruling – even a narrow one that simply says District residents enjoy the same right to have a handgun in their home for personal protection that citizens in the states now exercise – will force many Americans to re-think their attitudes about firearms and people who own them. Such a ruling will not solve the predicament of social bigotry against gun owners, but as we saw in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, nothing good comes easily or all at once.

Constitutionally, there is no better time, and perhaps no better case, for the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment protects individual citizens, not states. The right to keep and bear arms is as necessary today as it was when James Madison wrote the Second Amendment language more than 200 years ago, perhaps more so.

This right is not simply about national defense, it is about community and self-defense. As we note in our new book, "America Fights Back – Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age," the right of self-defense is hardly passé. With violent crime rates rising, the ability to defend one's self and family with a firearm is all too frequently the difference between life and death at the hands of predatory criminals who seem to glide through the legal system, committing one crime after another, often while awaiting trial for previous crimes, or while they are appealing prior convictions.

This is the right that District of Columbia resident Dick Anthony Heller cannot now exercise because of the District's 31-year-old handgun ban. That ban has been a colossal failure, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against inner-city thugs, and crime rates over the years prove it. His dilemma is shared by tens of thousands of his neighbors, and by fellow citizens in cities including Chicago, Morton Grove, Wilmette and Oak Park, Ill.

It is long past the time when this question should be answered, and this debate put to rest.

Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org). Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week (www.gunweek.com). They are co-authors of "America Fights Back – Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age," recently published by Merril Press.

[Ocellairs]

Case Filings

Case Filings.

[Matt H]

I decided that with the heller case on the horizon i should purchase some stock in firearm companies. I bought 500 shares of both sturm-ruger (RGR) and 500 of Smith and Wesson (SWHC). The way i see it is that a positive outcome of this case sets a precedent for Cook county as well, So with 582,049 residents in DC according to the 05 census, and 5,376,741 residents of Cook County according to the 2000 census, Thats  5,958,790 Potential Handgun owners. Even with as small of a number as 10% of these residents just purchasing ONE handgun, thats still almost 600,000 handguns. Even at 1% it should still provide significant revenues for firearm manafacturers, and Hopefully significant revenues for ME too. Of course, i've been wrong before.

[billzfx4]

Heck, I should get some stock in blood pressure meds, because I'm sure Richie's will go through the roof!

[GarandFan]

hodgie, on Apr 30 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

I decided that with the heller case on the horizon i should purchase some stock in firearm companies.

Regardless the Heller case and it's effect on firearm companies....I commend you for your purchases!

[tplane37]

hodgie, on Apr 30 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

I decided that with the heller case on the horizon i should purchase some stock in firearm companies. I bought 500 shares of both sturm-ruger (RGR) and 500 of Smith and Wesson (SWHC). The way i see it is that a positive outcome of this case sets a precedent for Cook county as well, So with 582,049 residents in DC according to the 05 census, and 5,376,741 residents of Cook County according to the 2000 census, Thats  5,958,790 Potential Handgun owners. Even with as small of a number as 10% of these residents just purchasing ONE handgun, thats still almost 600,000 handguns. Even at 1% it should still provide significant revenues for firearm manafacturers, and Hopefully significant revenues for ME too. Of course, i've been wrong before.

That's a good idea, I've thought about grabbing up some stock in Beretta, Colt, Rock River, Remmington, and Taurus. But have no idea how the stock market works (other than when the prices on oil stock goes up, so does the price at the pump...so having second thoughts about possibly raising the prices of firearms once our individual right is confirmed). But good on ya if you know how the process works.

[Matt H]

Quote

That's a good idea, I've thought about grabbing up some stock in Beretta, Colt, Rock River, Remmington, and Taurus. But have no idea how the stock market works (other than when the prices on oil stock goes up, so does the price at the pump...so having second thoughts about possibly raising the prices of firearms once our individual right is confirmed). But good on ya if you know how the process works.

As far as i am aware, the only 2 publicly traded firearm manafacturers on the US stock exchange are Ruger and S&W. The rest are privately owned and stock is not for sale. In this particular case, that is a good thing because as a stockholder you have voting power at shareholder meetings. Lets say a small Firearm manufacturer has stock bought up by a wealthy anti, he can vote on company issues such as electing board members, CEO's etc. That wealthy Anti could run a small firearm company into the ground just to make his point.

[TTIN]

Maybe June 9th?

Any bets?

[GarandFan]

My bet is 23 June.

[flagtag]

GarandFan, on Jun 6 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

My bet is 23 June.

I'll guess June 25th.

[GarandFan]

According to court schedules, during June, opinions are released on Mondays.  And 23 June is the last June Monday of this term.

Otherwise, we'd have to wait until this fall, October at the earliest.

[Slappy]

GarandFan, on Jun 6 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

According to court schedules, during June, opinions are released on Mondays.  And 23 June is the last June Monday of this term.

Otherwise, we'd have to wait until this fall, October at the earliest.

correct me if I'm wrong here:

From what I understand of the court proceedings though, is that they are under no obligation to release a verdict on Heller in June... they can take 5 years to deliberate if they choose...

is only the expectation of June we are looking at...

[flagtag]

GarandFan, on Jun 6 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

According to court schedules, during June, opinions are released on Mondays.  And 23 June is the last June Monday of this term.

Otherwise, we'd have to wait until this fall, October at the earliest.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.  

[GarandFan]

Slappy, on Jun 6 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

correct me if I'm wrong here:

From what I understand of the court proceedings though, is that they are under no obligation to release a verdict on Heller in June... they can take 5 years to deliberate if they choose...

is only the expectation of June we are looking at...

I believe that you are generally correct, in that the court is not strictly obligated to release a decision in the same term as they heard the argument.  So, technically, it's not 100% sure that we will see the decision this month.  However, from what I understand, it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for them not to release the Heller decision on Monday, 23 June (or either Monday of the 9th or the 16th).

[Slappy]

GarandFan, on Jun 6 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

I believe that you are generally correct, in that the court is not strictly obligated to release a decision in the same term as they heard the argument.  So, technically, it's not 100% sure that we will see the decision this month.  However, from what I understand, it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for them not to release the Heller decision on Monday, 23 June (or either Monday of the 9th or the 16th).

If they didn't I think it would signify that is going to be one close verdict!!!

[TTIN]

Slappy, on Jun 6 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

GarandFan, on Jun 6 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

I believe that you are generally correct, in that the court is not strictly obligated to release a decision in the same term as they heard the argument.  So, technically, it's not 100% sure that we will see the decision this month.  However, from what I understand, it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY for them not to release the Heller decision on Monday, 23 June (or either Monday of the 9th or the 16th).

If they didn't I think it would signify that is going to be one close verdict!!!

Well the Appeals court has already voted our way,right? So I expect(hope) it will not be a huge deal and come sooner than later.

[GarandFan]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 8 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

Well the Appeals court has already voted our way,right? So I expect(hope) it will not be a huge deal and come sooner than later.

The structure of the federal courts is as follows:

Supreme Court
Circuit Courts (Appeals Courts)
District Courts

There are 12 circuit courts...11 of them handling cases originating from states and the 12th is the District of Columbia circuit court.

On the 2A issue, the DC circuit at the 5th circuit have ruled that the 2A protects the individual right to arms outside of formal militia connections.  On the other hand, NINE circuit courts have adopted the "collective rights" view.  Only the 2nd circuit court has not issued a ruling on this issue.

Can anyone tell me whether the DC circuit is considered a "higher" court than the other 11 circuit courts?  I thought that was the case but have no reference to that fact.

I think, but am not certain, that the most in-depth analyses of this issue have been taken up by the two courts that ruled individual right.  In fact, I was reading the Emerson decision recently (5th circuit) and indeed, they go into great depth.

Quite obviously, these splits are why the issue is in front of the Supreme Court.  

So, timeisnow, I must disagree with you on one thing.....this is a HUGE deal.  But I agree that a lot of legwork has been done by the justices in the DC and 5th circuit courts (and in the briefs and amici for Heller).

[Lou]

WLS AM 890 out of Chicago has just reported that the Heller decision "might" be released today!

[TTIN]

GF,I didn't mean to imply that the ruling isn't a huge deal,just that them coming to a decision hopefully won't be.

[GarandFan]

Lou, on Jun 9 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

WLS AM 890 out of Chicago has just reported that the Heller decision "might" be released today!

Darned sensationalists!


Four opinions were released this morning starting at 10 eastern.  Heller was not among them.

They reported that additional opinions will be released this Thursday at 10 eastern.

[45superman]

GarandFan, on Jun 8 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

Can anyone tell me whether the DC circuit is considered a "higher" court than the other 11 circuit courts?  I thought that was the case but have no reference to that fact.

I don't know if I could ever find it again, but when the DC Appellate Court ruled in favor of rights (in what was then Parker v. District of Columbia), I remember reading that the DC circuit is considered the "weightiest" of the circuits, or at least among the weightiest.

[Slappy]

GarandFan, on Jun 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

They reported that additional opinions will be released this Thursday at 10 eastern.

I thought opinions were released only on mondays? They making an exception for this?

[Chris]

Slappy, on Jun 9 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

GarandFan, on Jun 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

They reported that additional opinions will be released this Thursday at 10 eastern.

I thought opinions were released only on mondays? They making an exception for this?

Now I thought that they would prefer to do it on Fridays, you know "We find it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week. "

[45superman]

Read the comments following this article--specifically, the ones by Jamie Kelly.

I've been paying enough attention that I realized right away that it had to be a prank, but I bet he freaked some people out.

That's just mean.

[Silver Guardian]

Have a little faith. The supreme court is majority republican, and besides, they know that they risk doomsday if they should decide unjustly.

[GarandFan]

45superman, on Jun 9 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Read the comments following this article--specifically, the ones by Jamie Kelly.

I've been paying enough attention that I realized right away that it had to be a prank, but I bet he freaked some people out.

That's just mean.

Superman, thanks for the link.  Knowing full well that the decision was not released today, I too knew right away it was a prank.  As a result, I laughed my self silly on that one.

Sometimes, we definately do take things too seriously!!

[GarandFan]

That was the best interview I've seen of Alan Gura.  The young man is sharp.  He didn't fall for making comments on individual Justices, though he easily could have commented on any of them.

That video is well worth a look by all here.

[45superman]

GarandFan, on Jun 9 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

That was the best interview I've seen of Alan Gura.  The young man is sharp.  He didn't fall for making comments on individual Justices, though he easily could have commented on any of them.

That video is well worth a look by all here.

Glad you mentioned that.  When I posted the link, I was on my piece of %&@$ computer that doesn't do video well, so I didn't bother trying to watch the video then.  After that, I forgot about it.

Now that I have watched it, I agree that it's definitely worth the few minutes it takes to watch.

I hadn't realized how young Gura is.  He's certainly no dummy.