Comments on: OK NRA… Now Take the Ball and Run

By: Phil H

Phil H — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:06:37 +0000

The part that is disheartening to me is that this case was privately financed and pursued by an individual. The NRA eventually filed an amicus brief, but they were unwilling to initiate it or assist Heller and other individuals in trying to remove an onerous law. Many times, I get the impression that the NRA is more interested in the game of politics than they are gun rights. This is just one of several instances that I have followed in the last few years that bears my theory out.

Now that the hard work has been done, my prediction is that the NRA will go looking for low-hanging fruit. I predict that they will be moderately successful, but could be more successful if they studied and adopted the techniques put forward by Robert Levy, who, by the way, is a Great American.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:54:41 +0000

I heard a discouraging comment by a legal scholar indicating that the 2nd ammendment applies to federal action/enforcement, but does not necessarily obligate the states to honor the 2nd ammendment. Can anyone comment on this possibility?

EDITOR: Justice Scalia’s Opinion did not directly reach the issue of whether the rule of Heller will be applied to the states via “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment. But here is what Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett says, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

“Two important practical issues remain. First, will this ruling also apply to states and municipalities? That will depend on whether the Supreme Court decides to ‘incorporate’ the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment. But in the middle of his opinion Justice Scalia acknowledges that the 39th Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment did so, in part, to protect the individual right to arms of freedmen and Southern Republicans so they might defend themselves from violence.

My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states.”

By: SPClark

SPClark — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:51:23 +0000

Robert, that’s exactly what Chicago’s been doing for three decades: all firearms must be registered, but registering them is impossible, at least for the common citizen. If you’re an Aldeman though, and somehow “forget” to re-register your collection, they’ll make an exception.

Today’s SCOTUS decision means a lot to those of us who trust the wording of the Second Amendment to know what the Founding Fathers originally intended. 227 years later, there are a LOT of folks who believe they know better and would happily deprive us of our rights. They have money, they have clout, they have the means to express their agenda.

November 4th, 2008 is the next important milestone on our Journey of Recognition.

By: Robert Whitley

Robert Whitley — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:05:12 +0000

The frustrating aspect of the unconstitutional type gun laws is that the average person is typically not in a position economically or otherwise to challenge such laws and go “toe to toe” with a municipal or government entity to fight for and protect his or her rights. The D.C. gun ban was in effect for around 30 years before Heller came along and someone was in a position and motivated enough to fight it out, and when he did, it had to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I applaud the majority decision but it is clear the anti gun forces will continue the “war”. Is the District of Columbia now going to be obnoxious about the loss and make the requirements so stringent for owning and keeping a gun to protect yourself in D.C. that you might as well have a gun ban. I guess I am cynical in that I see many of the anti gunners out there as somewhat rabid to do anything to get their way and impose their will on others (i.e. “the end justifies the means”).

Robert Whitley