heller VS D.C. for "non-gunners"

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tango3, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    nice explanation of the 2a..:
    By John Longenecker
    November 7, 2007


    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Supreme Court Of the United States will soon decide whether to hear Heller v. District Of Columbia, a case about gun bans and frustration of a civil right in high crime areas. This can have a profound impact on the country as there are already gun bans in place in cities, in states, in public buildings, workplace, U.S. Parks, big box shopping centers, airports, civil aircraft and school campuses, all of which have proven to be adverse to the community when a shooting takes place as completed. Where shooters enter and kill in a matter of seconds, they find the gun ban locales to be as advertised — victim disarmament zones. And where crime is rampant – gun crime and non-gun crime – it is largely because the targets are unarmed and unable to fight back. It is because they are talked out of their own defense. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]However the issue is framed, whatever becomes at-issue, must consider specific truths, including original intent, previous cases, germane findings and miscarriages of justice which then can be corrected. Do gun bans serve the public, or are they adverse to the public? Do citizens fear their officials more than they fear the thugs who come to rob and maim them? What will be at-issue? [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Guns serve a distinct purpose in America today. Non-gun owners believe that it’s to oppose Tyranny, so let’s look at this a moment. In 1776, Tyranny was abuse of due process backed by official force. It usually is. It’s a word few can barely comprehend, much less relate to 2007 kitchens, schoolyards and workplace, but if we come to understand the purpose of the second amendment – and the eighth, ninth, tenth and fourteenth which support it – the issue becomes clear. Substitute the word Dependency - compelled dependency on agencies to the exclusion of the citizen involvement - and you can then see more clearly a Tyranny in 2007. You can begin to see how Gun Control affects non-gun owners.[/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The beauty of this problem to balance its horror lies in the fact that this is not a government-wide policy, but merely the foible of a small number of mistaken officials and activists. Much government throughout the U.S. supports concealed carry of weapons and has not taken this affirmation back. More than 2 million adults have permits to carry concealed, and some states don’t even require a permit. With a majority of states of the union affirming concealed carry for their constituents, how to fight crime is also quite clear where they live. It also reflects a trust of their constituents, a trust they have not had reason to regret. Gun ban locales have the highest crime rates, where activists have dissuaded officials from their oath of office. Gun Control Policy is not opinion of latitude in governance — it is ask officials to abandon their oath. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Here is what 2A is really all about in a nutshell: The Founding Fathers had had it up to their necks with abuses of due process. The Crown of England tightened its grip on the Colonists who had thought the Colonies would be an extension of England, but it was not to be. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In defeating the Crown, the Founders of America defeated abuse of the law, and remedied it all by declaring the citizen as Supreme Authority. They knew that this Authority must be backed by lethal force and forever if the nation was to survive future abuses. Thus, the Second Amendment was not written for citizens, it was written for officials. It was not written about guns, it was written about abuses of due process. The amendment was not written for that time, it was written for all time, including the future, for any age, any era. [/FONT]

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Within the meaning of the second amendment, Militia meant the Everyman, every able-bodied person on two counts: i) Today’s U.S. Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Section 311, spells out Militia and affirms this, and; ii) that National Guard was not contemplated or created for another 130 years. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In modern America, crime is a tool for social engineering, including Commerce. You can see it used and abused for the incoming RFID Chip technology, the national ID Card, various surveillances, shared databases, and all sorts of so-called remedies for crime, but the one remedy which could impeach all of these is not even on the table, and even opposed in public announcements. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Independence, citizen authority and liberty as superior to official opinion. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In America, liberty is one of the last obstacles to looting the nation. Cottage industries support the policies and technologies which not only furnish the Flea — the tiny RFID Chip you don’t want on you – but they also exist to remedy mistakes anticipated by the technologies in errors, mixed identities, omissions, drone abuse, retaliation, etc. Officials and activists point to crime and violence to justify their leading the guidance of the next years, so without crime and violence, the picnic ends. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]As the Founders had feared, today, Crime is used as an excuse to disarm Americans. Anti-hate, anti-violence policy is a boondoggle. The boondoggle is in the practice that Crime is used for a host of new technologies alleged to fight crime and violence. Not only do these pre-emptively accuse, indict and criminalize the honest citizen and not work at all, but this is not where crime and violence are fought, anyway! [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I write often that crime is not fought by chasing it – crime is caught by chasing it, and long after-the-fact, long after the heartbreak, the scarring and the adverse social change crime brings, long after the tragic statistics are logged. Whole industries depends on violence, and they depend on your not being involved in your own defense. I write often that crime is not fought by anti-crime policies – crime is fought by meeting it -- with authority and superior force. The Founders knew that bluff and straw policies backed by force would try and disarm the authority of the nation. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]One must be aware of this original intent and how it applies to 2007 America across time. The Founders did not fear weapons of the future – their greatest fear was abuse of due process in the future of the new nation. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]At present, various anti-crime policies are breeding further and further compelled Dependency on agencies which cannot take your place as the first line of defense in the most critical moments of a violent crime. Discouraging weapons leads only to increased violence in one-sided aggression, as Gun Control Policy obfuscates citizen authority to act when facing grave danger alone. Dependency is the greatest threat to America at this hour. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Discouraging armed self-defense makes about as much sense as discouraging citizen CPR when EMS cannot arrive in time. Concealed weapons and citizen first-aid, the Heimlich Maneuver and CPR have an utter identity of values in the public interest. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]They are Identical. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Most households do not know that police have no duty to protect individuals. As a head of a household, one might find this useful. If you like the Supremes, try Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Supreme Court, 2005. "No constitutional right to police protection." This has been true since the formation of an organized police force in the U.S. Gun control policy hides this and other useful data.[/FONT] ​
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]For numbers hounds, the FBI reports about 11,000 people are shot to death each year, mostly crime-on-crime shootings. The FBI also reports that the number of times a violent crime is de-escalated by an armed citizen using their own gun is about 2.5 million per year. Compare. [/FONT]​

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]But will this mean anything in gun control policy? It hasn’t so far. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The average household might prepare for root canal, traffic accident, unemployment, or illness, but how the household will meet, manage and even survive violent crime is the most neglected area of household management.[/FONT] ​
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]What Heller may decide, if the Supremes take the case, will not be a test of words of art or even precedent, nor will it become Government versus Constituents, but a test of original intent for our sovereign authority in how a handful of representatives and activists may not craft rhetoric or policy in boondoggles to disarm the supreme authority of the nation – the citizen – for gain.[/FONT]​

    © 2007 - John Longenecker - All Rights Reserved

    E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

    <HR width="60%">[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]John Longenecker was one of the first Paramedics in Los Angeles EMS. Today, he a father of three, author, columnist, talk show guest and founder of the Good For The Country Foundation, a 501(c)(3) patriotic think tank examining policy adverse to the public interest.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Website: GoodForTheCountry.org [/FONT]
    [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]E-Mail: john.ljr@verizon.net[/FONT]

    <HR width="60%">Home
  2. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    Good post!
  3. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    Thanks for the post.
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    :) "Even a blind hog finds an acorn e'ry now an again..."
  5. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    By John Longenecker
    November 7, 2007

    Been in the archives again? Good article but IIRC not only have they determined to hear it but I think the docket date is March 18 with the decission to be announced at a later date toward the summer.
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    Just came across this today. Can't vouch for it's truthfulness but a search of the NRA-ILA site should confirm it.

    The lamestream media told you:

    The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

    A group calling itself American Hunters and Shooters is soliciting funds under the pretense of defending Second Amendment rights and hunters' interests.
    In reality, the group has funded anti-gun lawsuits, gun bans, the Brady campaign, candidates such as John Kerry, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and seeks "reasonable" gun control.
    The underhanded deception goes as far as an amicus brief in the Heller case, superficially on the side of Heller and gun rights, which, if adopted, would undercut gun rights nationwide. The hubris of these people knows no bounds. Thanks to NRA-ILA for alerting me to the scam.
  7. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    ? Pardon my ignorance; but How would weighing in on the "heller"( pro individual ownership) side"undercut gun rights nationdwide??? Guess I need to buy a program to keep track of the players. I thought the heller decision would deny or allow the individual rights in the 2nd as most gunowners understand it.If heller "wins" its a goodthing for our individual rights.. D.C wins, we get to see all these new classified nonlethal heat beam weapons, in action.
  8. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    In basic theory Heller winning would= good for gun rights and DC winning would = bad for gun rights BUT we all know politics can twist things around. So given the way this group operates, while I havent read their input on this, it could easily be something along the lines of that gun ownership is an individual right but only applies to guns such as were known at the time of the writeing of the Constitution and as such, if the SCOTUS went with their idea then thy would 'affirm' the individual right side of the 2A while at the same time allowing for the removal of all modern firearms from private ownership.

    This particular group raises money from gun owners by talking up that they support hunters and so on then use those funds and the leverage of haveinglots of 'members' registered to then lobby for more gun controle.
  9. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Editor's Note: This column is part II of a two-part series co-written by Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman. Part I can be found here.
    The two red-hot issues fused by the District of Columbia v. Heller case -- guns and judges -- are two of the most divisive in American politics.

    D.C. v. Heller could become one of the most important cases in American history, with profound political and policy implications.

    The case will directly affect 90 million American gun owners. Whether they have a constitutional right to own guns immediately makes their ownership either a protected right or merely a privilege that the government can restrict at will. Either way everyone else in our society is indirectly affected.

    Gun bans fall particularly heavily on women, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled who own guns for self defense purposes. Though stereotypical gun owners are white adult males in the prime of life, the reality is that these are the people who need guns the least. Most people are more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and thus have a greater need for a tool that neutralizes any would-be criminal’s greater size, strength, or speed.

    The short-term political impact of Heller might turn the 2008 presidential election. Either Senators Clinton or Obama would the most anti-gun Democrat nominee in American history. The Second Amendment is a pivotal issue in a half-dozen swing states, and other swing states have smaller gun votes, but gun owners could easily tip those states in a close election.

    Heller will heat up twice during the presidential campaign, first when the case is argued in March and second when the Court hands down its decision, most likely in June. Gun owners will either be emboldened, pressing forward for policies recognizing their rights, or outraged that an activist Court has denied them their cherished right, holding rallies, and taking to the streets. Either way, gun rights could dominate the news.

    In addition to guns, this evaluation of the party nominees’ records is true for federal judicial nominations. Heller will fuse the issues of guns and judges in America. The four conservative justices -- Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito -- are expected to support an individual’s right. Most or all of the liberal justices -- Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer --will oppose an individual’s right. That leaves Justice Kennedy -- the only moderate on the Court -- as the swing vote who could decide the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    It cannot be overstated how much Heller will make judicial nominations a campaign issue for tens of millions of gun owners, millions of whom usually vote Democrat. With John McCain naming Justices Roberts and Alito as models of who he would nominate to the Supreme Court and Senators Obama and Clinton both naming Justice Ginsburg as their model, it will be impossible to be pro-gun yet fight for a liberal Supreme Court at the same time. This also will be true for Senate seats as well, where pro-gun states will demand that their U.S. senators support nominees who will uphold their gun rights.

    Heller’s impact could go well beyond Election Day. It could actually have a lasting impact on our culture itself as one of the cases that reshapes the national dialogue.

    Take the example of Everson v. Board of Education. This 1947 case created the doctrine of separation between church and state, launching 60 years of the radical secularization of our culture and an all-out war against people of faith, especially conservative Christians. What’s important about Everson is that the religious people actually won that case, but the rule the Court proclaimed in it has systematically stripped religion of its social influence ever since. Though the idea of separating church and state was almost unheard of in 1947, it has now become a widely accepted concept in our culture. That is the power of a landmark Supreme Court case.

    There have been a handful of cases that have shaped America. Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, and Marbury v. Madison are more than just history book entries; they actually changed the nation. For good or ill, District of Columbia v. Heller might join that list. It could become the Roe v. Wade of gun ownership.

    And Heller is just the beginning. There will be more Second Amendment cases. If the Court finds that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, 20 years of major cases will follow, fleshing out the contours of this right.

    District of Columbia v. Heller is in the hands and minds of nine judges who sit on the highest court in the land and whose majority opinion could change the course of American history, one way or the other. As with abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights, the biggest battles over gun rights will hereafter be fought not in Congress or state legislatures but in the courts.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Re: heller V D.C. for "non-gunners"

    OFF topic, but --

    Rosenthal resigned from AHSA May 07. The AHSA website acknowledges that his activities with gun ban organizations was inconsistent with the AHSA goals and activities. (I suspect he was invited to resign, can't be sure of that from here.) Also, he attempted to join my trap club in MA with credentials that failed to prove out, and membership was denied. I won't state that the AHSA is whistle clean so far as gun ownership rights are concerned, but at least they know a canard when they see it.
  11. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It could be that they honestly disagree with him but given that they allowed it as long as they did I would suspect they simply got replaced a figurehead so they could keep stealing money from pro gun supporters to use against them.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary