DC sticks it's thumb in the eye of USSC re it's "emergency legislation"

[alan2]

One supposes that those who run DC's government were less than happy with USSC's ruling in DC v. Heller, poor thing that some describe this ruling as being, ergo their enactment of "emergency legislation" above mentioned.

Interestingly, The Congress has the power and authority to repeal or toss out any legislative enactments of the district's government, which it should have done in 1976, but didn't. Seems that there is currently a proposal in The House for such action, action which Speaker Pelosi no doubt is unhappy with. Representative  Mark Souder has introduced a Discharge Petition seeking to get floor action. Has your congress person signed, I understand that of 218 signatures needed, about 108 or 109 have been obtained so far.

Readers might want to contact their congressional representative re having them sign this petition. Funny thing is that while many in congress speak of their support for The Second Amendment, what they do when the need for action is at hand might well tell another story. Readers might also want to find out exactly where their congressional representatives stand on this matter, for when push comes to shove, the government of DC has essentially enacted retention of pretty much what the USSC ruled unconstitutional.

[AZRedhawk44]

Alan, I disagree.

Heller got revolvers okayed.  And not JUST revolvers, but revolvers as a starting point.  With heavy dicta in our favor with which to pursue the likes of Fenty and Daley, and beat them into submission.

Congress doesn't need to act, and in fact it will HURT us if Congress acts.  We need the continuing resolutions and judgements at the SCOTUS level to further entrench the Heller decision into the fabric of our civil rights law foundation.

Congress acting at this point would do as much damage as Senator Hatch introducing his legislation to redact the DC laws while the case was still Parker vs. DC.  We. Don't. Want. That.

We NEED the judiciary to continue doing the job it has started doing over the last few years: curtailing government obstruction of rights, liberties and priveledges of US Citizens.  Those decisions can protect us for decades at worst, and for hundreds of years at best.  Laws are only as good as the Congress that created them, and can be repealed by the next batch of idiots in 2 years.

[French G.]

Agreed, if we let nature run it's course Fenty will do more for gun rights than Wayne LaPierre. We could write a novel and not be able to conjure up a better useful idiot. He is just going to keep hitting that tar baby.

[alan2]

Alan, I disagree.

Heller got revolvers okayed.  And not JUST revolvers, but revolvers as a starting point.  With heavy dicta in our favor with which to pursue the likes of Fenty and Daley, and beat them into submission.

Congress doesn't need to act, and in fact it will HURT us if Congress acts.  We need the continuing resolutions and judgements at the SCOTUS level to further entrench the Heller decision into the fabric of our civil rights law foundation.

Congress acting at this point would do as much damage as Senator Hatch introducing his legislation to redact the DC laws while the case was still Parker vs. DC.  We. Don't. Want. That.

We NEED the judiciary to continue doing the job it has started doing over the last few years: curtailing government obstruction of rights, liberties and priveledges of US Citizens.  Those decisions can protect us for decades at worst, and for hundreds of years at best.  Laws are only as good as the Congress that created them, and can be repealed by the next batch of idiots in 2 years.

Red:

A difference of opinion here, it seems, though we do agree on one thing at least, that being your obvservation regarding things offered by Senator Hatch. BTW, I believe that what we really need is INCORPORATION, as with The Second Amendment being incorpoprated, so that it applies to the states, other jurisdictions too as well as to the federal government. By the way, looking at federal legislation that is currently on the books, does The Second Amendment really bind the feds?

[AZRedhawk44]

By the way, looking at federal legislation that is currently on the books, does The Second Amendment really bind the feds?

Are you trying to point to HR-1022 or some similar bill that is a new resurrection of the AWB?  Or current stuff like FOPA-86?

This is exactly why legislation is inherently useless to our cause and further drives home my point that we want the Congress to stay out of this issue.  I could care less if 1022 is passed, because the Heller precedent (and other precedents to be built based on Heller over the next 2-10 years) will thrash the legislation to pieces.  As it is poised to do regarding FOPA-86 and numerous other pieces of legislation.

Legislation is inherently reversible.  SCOTUS decisions, on the other hand, require MASSIVE legislation rewrites or even Constitutional Amendments.

SCOTUS binds the feds... not Congress or the President.  Just as the system was intended.  Do you see Congress or the President even attempting to restrain one another in bids for power?  Telecom immunity, Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, Civilian National Defense Forces, Fannie/Freddie mortgage bailout, the list just keeps growing.  Anything to add power to those two branches, will be done.  They have absolutely no restraint.

Trusting Congress or the President over the next 8 years is about as sensible as using a rattlesnake as a CCW weapon.

[alan2]

AZRedhawk44 posed the following question in his response:


Are you trying to point to HR-1022 or some similar bill that is a new resurrection of the AWB?  Or current stuff like FOPA-86?
\
While I didn't mention specifics earlier, may I mention the following now:

1. The Gun Control Act of 1968.
2. The National Firearms Act of 1934.

Items 1 and 2 being what comes to mind at the moment.

As to other points, interesting ones btw, the following also comes to mind re congressional action and or the lack thereof and DC's 1976 Gun Ban legislation. Members of The Congress are sworn to support, uphold and defend the constitution, yet respecting their failure to reject the district's 1976 legislation, they failed to support, uphold and defend the constitution, also failing to carry out their oaths of office.

It's true that USSC rulings are more or less written in concrete, they can be gotten around. It isn't easy, it is possible of accomplishment. Laws can be amended and or repealed, they can also be ruled, by the courts, as being unconstitutional.

Having sasid this, whuile I might be missing salient poionts, I fail to see where the harm would come from, were the congress (House and Senate) to reject DC's "emergency legislation", unless the courts became sufficiently energized to take such action themselves, directly and quickly.

[AZRedhawk44]

Alan, you're playing checkers instead of chess.

Think long-term.  Court victories over DC give us precedent in Chicago and New York.  Congressional repeal of laws in DC have no bearing at all in other cities.

This is why Morton Grove, Illinois stepped back (voting 6-1 on the city board) from their handgun ban.  Not because they felt it was the right thing to do... but because of the financial juggernaught of a lawsuit they faced.  NRA, GOA, CATO, SAF and Gura's own dime were lined up against them with the potential to make them a model case by which to strike down other gun legislation.  The city didn't have the money to fight that, so they decided to retreat and let Chicago take the next assault.  Smart on their part.

If, by some miracle, Chicago wins, then watch for Morton Grove to reimpose their handgun ban.  Probably by a vote of 7-0.

And this is the failure of the legislative process to resolve this issue.  The city board just temporarily (in my opinion) rescinded legislation while they were vulnerable.  They will happily put it back out there when or if the vulnerability passes.

Same goes for Congressional oversight of DC.  In fact, the House can rescind the laws and look good to us gun nuts, while quietly giving instruction to DC city council on the best way to incrementally get back to square 1 over the next 5 years.  Frog in a pot, and all that.

If Heller has accompanying and more explicit case law though, kiss handgun prohibition or registration good-bye forever.

This is why we need to let the courts fully run their course before attempting legislation in an arena where we can be called to "compromise" or otherwise be gotten the better of, as has happened in the past most notably with FOPA-86.

[MicroBalrog]

AZR, do you really think Heller can be used to overturn 922(o)?

[AZRedhawk44]

I have hopes, but they aren't very strong.

My greater hopes for Heller are to cement everywhere in the US the kinds of rights enjoyed by the "free" states.  Maybe not Alaska an Vermont (but maybe so, if "bear" means what it usually means), but at least Arizona and Montana.

I'm also hoping for completely unrestricted manual action and semiautomatic action weapons ownership and carry, as well as a loosening of the .50 caliber non-sporting bore clause... I'd like an M203 to accompany my AR-15 and some fun fireworks rounds.  No HE until I learn how to properly handle/store/shoot them, but slugs/chalk/pretty fireworks would be neat.  Elimination of the $200 tax stamp on the weapon itself and the $200 per cartridge would be good.

Congress won't give us that in a million years, though.  We have to take it back ourselves, via challenges predicated on the Heller success and Scalia's fairly generous wordings.  I think we have a good case against the tax stamp now, after heller.

Not that I'm a lawyer or anything.

[FTA84]

I've always felt that machine guns have been and always will be a dead issue.  They are not really needed (nor intended) for self defense.  No one is going to give up machine guns based on the arguement, "I just want to make fireworks."  You would have to revist the Heller decision and confirm that the individual right is connected to some sort of collective right of the militia to exist/train.  Then if they grant machine guns, by the same logic they would have to grant tanks, fighter jets, and a carpet bombers.  Never going to happen.

[alan2]

AZRedhawk44 :

Re reply/post #6, you might have some salient points there, however I still believe that The Congress and it's lying double-talk is an ongoing problem.

AZR, do you really think Heller can be used to overturn 922(o)?

As to overturning 922, that's Section 922 isn't it, I believe that what is needed there is unrelenting pressure from the people, spelled the gun owners of this country, which MIGHT be enough, if only it could be suitably organized and maintained.

I've always felt that machine guns have been and always will be a dead issue.  They are not really needed (nor intended) for self defense.  No one is going to give up machine guns based on the arguement, "I just want to make fireworks."  You would have to revist the Heller decision and confirm that the individual right is connected to some sort of collective right of the militia to exist/train.  Then if they grant machine guns, by the same logic they would have to grant tanks, fighter jets, and a carpet bombers.  Never going to happen.

To hell with this "need" business. As to the "intended" purpose, reading the minds of people long dead was never my strong suit, it isn't now either, however where is it written that an SMG, for instance, could not be used defensively? John Ross in Unintended Consequences described the National Firearms Act of 1934 as "welfare for Treasury (Prohibition) Agents". While some will no doubt dispute that view, it always sounded valid to me, and it still does. By the way, I have, from time to time, fired light automatic weapons (SMG's). Having done so in the past, I doubt that I'd rush down the street to the local machine gun store to buy one, even if there was that "local machine gun store" that sold the things without the endless paper work foolishness, and the current ridiculous prices. To each their own though.

All:

One more thought. Remember that the ultimate and unchanging goal of the anti's is, from their own mouth's, The Total Proscription of Firearms. They might exempt those in the hands of "government actors", but most assuredly, gun ownership, possession and use for Mr., Mrs. and Ms. Everyperson would be history.

[FTA84]

To hell with this "need" business. As to the "intended" purpose, reading the minds of people long dead was never my strong suit, it isn't now either, however where is it written that an SMG, for instance, could not be used defensively? John Ross in Unintended Consequences described the National Firearms Act of 1934 as "welfare for Treasury (Prohibition) Agents". While some will no doubt dispute that view, it always sounded valid to me, and it still does. By the way, I have, from time to time, fired light automatic weapons (SMG's). Having done so in the past, I doubt that I'd rush down the street to the local machine gun store to buy one, even if there was that "local machine gun store" that sold the things without the endless paper work foolishness, and the current ridiculous prices. To each their own though.

You are right, could, should, would, can, intended blah blah blah.  Perhaps I used intended when I should have used 'common use'.  Even if MGs were deregulated, I don't think they would pass for common usage of self defense.

[AZRedhawk44]

Even if MGs were deregulated, I don't think they would pass for common usage of self defense.

I disagree.

In 1994, EBR's such as the AR-15 accounted for a slim margin of the total firearms market.  They got banned under the AWB.

When the AWB was in effect, AWB-compliant AR-15's spiked in sales.

When the AWB expired, "Freedom-compliant" AR's were manufactured en masse and make up a huge market segment.  They are now in common usage because of Americans' desire to see them as such.  America decided to never again allow such a thing to happen, and altered the market accordingly.

If MG's are ever de-regulated or the 86 new manufacture ban is lifted, you'll double the NFA registry inside of 3 months.  Within a year, MG's will consist of 10 to 20 percent of all firearms sales.  They will hit common use overnight because again, Americans don't want them banned.

I think Scalia and most of the court knows this fact.  If Heller pertained to AR's and was examined in 1994, Scalia would have seen that AR's are not very common at all.  Now, there's one in almost every gun safe.  Scalia and his buddies know that false market forces created by the government are at fault for this fact, just like the MG ban (which isn't a ban, just a choke on supply).  Fast forward to 2008 and have Heller apply to AR's, and a case based upon them being "uncommon" proves the fallacy of allowing government constriction on supply of a product protected by the Bill of Rights.

[MicroBalrog]

Even if MGs were deregulated, I don't think they would pass for common usage of self defense.

Why not?

Follow me into a thought experiment. You're now in the Gun Shop O'the Future. Let's say - for the purpose of this thought experiment - that you can choose, at approximately an equal price, between two AR-15 type rifles, of equal make and quality, except one has an M16-type select-fire trigger group, and the other has a semi-only trigger group. Do you not think that there is a distinct possibility you (or at least lots of other people) would choose the select-fire?

Remember whom the Thompson subguns were marketed to before 1934. It wasn't gangsters. Upper-middle class Americans - lawyers, ranchers, businessmen - were the main market for 'em.

Further, remember that many of the most effective modern subguns are known as PDW - Personal Defence Weapons, designed for lightly trained, non-combat personnel to be able to use for close-quarters self-defense.  Now, if Sammy the Army Clerk can use it to defend against an Enemy Infiltrator at two yards, why would it not also fit the bill to defend Sammy the Delivery Driver from a Mutant Zombie Biker at two yards?

[HankB]

Even if MGs were deregulated, I don't think they would pass for common usage of self defense.

I personally think a very good home defense firearm would be something along the lines of an HKMP5SD . . . it's short enough to maneuver in a typical home, a burst of (barely) subsonic 147 grain JHPs would make short work of a bad guy, and with the suppressor, you wouldn't blow your ears out from firing it indoors or get dazzled by muzzle flash.

These characteristics make it a favorite of SWAT teams . . . and if LEOs choose to protect the public with these, I think I should be able to use one to protect my home.

Aside from the legal hoops to jump through, the price (somewhere well north of $10k, thanks to the artificial limit of the '86 ban) is the only barrier to my owning one today.

[mtnbkr]

While I have no problem with anyone owning a machine gun who can already own a regular firearm, I'd rather we use our resources to get universal access to the tools most of the nation already enjoys before tackling that hurdle.  When folks in DC can have any semi-auto they want, Chicagoans can have CCW, etc, then it's time to work on the machine gun ban.  Let's go for the low hanging fruit first.  If we burn our capital on machine guns, we might not have enough for getting regular stuff in the hands of currently oppressed citizens.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Even if MGs were deregulated, I don't think they would pass for common usage of self defense.

I personally think a very good home defense firearm would be something along the lines of an HKMP5SD . . . it's short enough to maneuver in a typical home, a burst of (barely) subsonic 147 grain JHPs would make short work of a bad guy, and with the suppressor, you wouldn't blow your ears out from firing it indoors or get dazzled by muzzle flash.

You have looked at Box of Truth as to how many sheets of drywall a 9mm round will go through, yes?

You own the consequences of every missed round. Remember that.

[MicroBalrog]

Thus his reference to 'barely subsonic' rounds.

And if you think a near-subsonic jacketed hollow-point will go through 20 centimeters of drywall, and then go through my appartment's concrete outer wall, and not tear itself completely apart, I have a bridge to sell

[El Tejon]

Let's go for the low hanging fruit first.  If we burn our capital on machine guns, we might not have enough for getting regular stuff in the hands of currently oppressed citizens.

Can we nominate Chris for Moderator on THR?

[MicroBalrog]

Upon checking the Box of Truth (it's dead but there are caches), I discovered that a 9mm Glaser blue tip will go through about 3.75 inches of drywall.

The interior walls of my appartment are approximatel 5 inches thick, and of course the exterior walls are thicker.

[Balog]

Mtnbkr ftw! I really, really, really wish more shooters understood that incrementalism is like a gun. It's neither good nor bad, just a tool. And it's the tool that could regain our liberty if we were smart enough to use it.

[FTA84]

Since this is not an arguement about a confirmable fact you may believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.  Remember, most people who own guns and use them for self defense are not gunnies -- that is guns are not their hobby.  They don't own more than 1 or two weapons.  I just find it hard to believe that everyone would be running out to buy full auto guns for protecting their home when the presumably already have a good semi-auto for that purpose.

Not to mention.  One of the best home defenses would actually be sleeping in a tank.  That way you could wake in the middle of the night, plow through the walls in your home, and get anyone before they get you.

If they deregulated tanks, they would cost little more than a new car (give them a smaller main gun).  Everyone spends money on new cars, so why not a tank?

In any event, I withdrawl myself from this thread.  If you need this thread to keep up your false hopes that one day the "Yee Haw!! I like me dem cheap machine guns. Dey is FUN!!" purposes you all want for a machine gun (don't need!) will come to fruition by twisting/contorting Heller v DC then keep right on posting away.

[HankB]

. . . If they deregulated tanks, they would cost little more than a new car (give them a smaller main gun).  Everyone spends money on new cars, so why not a tank?

Modern tanks like the M1A1 cost millions of dollar each - if you puchase in quantity.

On the surplus market, there are no laws restricting ownership of most tanks, halftracks, armored cars, or the like. It's the armament that's restricted. (Also, you can't drive most on public roads.)

[MicroBalrog]

I just find it hard to believe that everyone would be running out to buy full auto guns for protecting their home when the presumably already have a good semi-auto for that purpose.

That was never my contention. Obviously if you already own an AR15 there's no need or purpose to switch to an M16.

But since you 'withrdawl' yourself from the thread, I see no purpose to elaborate on this line of argument.

[alan2]

www.cato.org on DC Gun Laws and Heller, comments by Bob Levy

House to Vote on DC Gun Laws

"Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District, making it easier for D.C. residents to acquire pistols, including semiautomatics, while eliminating the strict handgun-storage requirements imposed by the city," reports The Washington Post. "Supporters say the bill has a good chance of passing the House, where pro-gun measures are popular. But it is unclear whether it would succeed in the Senate, where complex rules make it harder to push through legislation."

Bob Levy, Cato senior fellow in constitutional studies and co-counsel to Mr. Heller, comments: "The Supreme Court ruled in June that three provisions of Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are unconstitutional. The city has responded with new regulations -- one of which is a flagrant end-run around the Court's opinion, and others of which are clear violations of the spirit, if not the letter.

"The Constitution gives Congress plenary power over all legislative matters in the federal city. Most of that authority has since been delegated to the D.C. government. But home rule is not a license to violate the Constitution, as the D.C. city council clearly has done. It is now time for the U.S. Congress to get into the act. Over the years, our elected representatives have adopted a court-centric view of the Constitution -- a view that decisions about constitutionality are properly left to the judiciary. But members of Congress also swear to uphold the Constitution. Congress can make good on that oath by restoring the right of Washington, D.C. residents to possess functional firearms in their homes."

For more information:
Cato Weekly Video: Robert A. Levy details what's next in the fight for Second Amendment rights.
Cato Weekly Video: Robert A. Levy evaluates District of Columbia v. Heller.