District of Columbia v. Heller, Five Years Ago

District of Columbia v. Heller, Five Years Ago

This is a discussion on District of Columbia v. Heller, Five Years Ago within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Cato Institute held a discussion about the Second Amendment, self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms this week with some major players. ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By MJB_17
  • 1 Post By gtfoxy
  • 5 Post By ccw9mm

Thread: District of Columbia v. Heller, Five Years Ago

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array tmoore912's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Coast of Georgia
    Posts
    712

    District of Columbia v. Heller, Five Years Ago

    The Cato Institute held a discussion about the Second Amendment, self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms this week with some major players. Cato had it live, but now they have already posted the video of the discussion. You can watch it now at the link or you can download the Podcast.

    I watched it, and thought it was very informative.

    Featuring Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, Lead Counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Robert Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; and Emily Miller, Senior Editor, Washington Times, Author, Emily Gets Her Gun (forthcoming, Regnery); moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
    The Heller Ruling, Five Years On | Cato Institute
    GeorgiaCarry.org
    GPDO SAF NRA
    Let Not My Last Thought Be, If Only I Had My Gun.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    I would be interested to hear their thoughts on this ruling, five years later. I don't have the time to watch it right now. I'll have to come back to it at a later time.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array rednichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by tmoore912 View Post
    The Cato Institute held a discussion about the Second Amendment, self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms this week with some major players. Cato had it live, but now they have already posted the video of the discussion. You can watch it now at the link or you can download the Podcast.

    I watched it, and thought it was very informative.



    The Heller Ruling, Five Years On | Cato Institute
    Thanks for that, both the Heller and the McDonald holdings fascinate me; I'll watch, too.
    Red (Richard) Nichols
    "Chief Holster Scientist"

    http://www.highnoonholsters.com/Red_.../about_us.html

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,972
    Shall not be infringed............................
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array MJB_17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGLICO View Post
    Shall not be infringed............................
    Is a phrase that no quorum of society nor judiciary can agree upon the exact definition of and thus we still have cases upon cases pending.
    Hopyard likes this.

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,743
    Quote Originally Posted by MJB_17 View Post
    Is a phrase that no quorum of society nor judiciary can agree upon the exact definition of and thus we still have cases upon cases pending.

    ^^I am just a dumb truck driver,^^^^^^^^^^

    and I get it, why can't those who are "more intelligent" than I .

    to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
    Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Synonyms: borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass
    Notes: to impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate
    Steal Synonyms, Steal Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


    If someone was to "infringe" on ones relationship with ones wife, would it matter to what extent, or how little the infringement may have been? No.

    These anti-gun politicians are buffoons .
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig

  7. #7
    Ex Member Array MJB_17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    ^^I am just a dumb truck driver,^^^^^^^^^^

    and I get it, why can't those who are "more intelligent" than I .

    to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
    Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Synonyms: borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass
    Notes: to impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate
    Steal Synonyms, Steal Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


    If someone was to "infringe" on ones relationship with ones wife, would it matter to what extent, or how little the infringement may have been? No.

    These anti-gun politicians are buffoons .
    You're not a "dumb_____(anything)"...issues aren't that black and white anymore. On here, our opinions of the 2A represent an extreme view, there is an opposing cohort and a big one who don't really have much of an opinion at all.

    If you divide the 2A into 3 parts, "A well regulated militia..." is the most problematic. It leaves tremendous ambiguity because it does not specify what a "militia" nor "well regulated" mean.

    For contrast, the TX constitution says (in part) that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it goes on to say,"the legislature shall have the authority to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." The current TX CHL program is an example of the legislature acting within this authority.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array Brass63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Washington
    Posts
    5,562
    Thanks for the link.
    Informative. Interesting.
    The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  9. #9
    Member Array gtfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    313
    The intersting thing about the Heller verdict was that only 2 pages of the opinion were devoted to the Unlawful banning of guns in DC. Yet the other 62 pages held the establishment for the 2nd Amendment, & necessity, evident as the court upheld the codified right in no few words.

    This case put to rest, also, that modern arms could not be banned.
    Last edited by gtfoxy; June 8th, 2013 at 03:55 PM.
    oneshot likes this.

  10. #10
    Member Array Mjr_Fail's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    386
    Thanks for posting this link. Very informative.
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    "Ignorance can be treated with education, sadly there is no cure for stupidity."

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,417
    Quote Originally Posted by MJB_17 View Post
    You're not a "dumb_____(anything)"...issues aren't that black and white anymore. On here, our opinions of the 2A represent an extreme view, there is an opposing cohort and a big one who don't really have much of an opinion at all.

    If you divide the 2A into 3 parts, "A well regulated militia..." is the most problematic. It leaves tremendous ambiguity because it does not specify what a "militia" nor "well regulated" mean.
    Disagree.

    They mean exactly what they meant at the time those words were used.

    Basically, the 2A guarantees this: because everyone's security depends upon having a capable and effective armed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and bear (own, acquire, purchase, carry, transport) arms shall not be infringed.

    Militia = the adult population capable of bearing arms.

    Well regulated = sufficiently capable, armed and trained to be an effective force.

    That's pretty darned simple. It meant that then. It means that now. Sad, that some feel this is an "extreme" viewpoint. I'd think the view that ignoring the plain meaning of a foundation pillar of who we are as a People is extreme, that avoidance of that is the only sane and rational approach, that withstanding destroyers (and, most specifically, refusing to hire them, prosecuting them to the fullest extent we're capable of) is the fully-justifiable and easily-understood actions of a citizenry under direct attack. Extreme? Only destroyers would think so.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; June 8th, 2013 at 09:52 PM. Reason: grammar
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Disagree.

    They mean exactly what they meant at the time those words were used.

    Basically: because everyone's security depends upon having a capable and effective armed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and bear (own, acquire, purchase, carry, transport) arms shall not be infringed.

    Militia = the adult population capable of bearing arms.

    Well regulated = sufficiently capable, armed and trained to be an effective force.

    That's pretty darned simple. It meant that then. It means that now. Sad, that some feel this is an "extreme" viewpoint. I'd think the view that ignoring the plain meaning of a foundation pillar of who we are as a People is extreme, that avoidance of that is the only sane and rational approach, that withstanding destroyers (and, most specifically, refusing to hire them, prosecuting them to the fullest extent we're capable of) is the fully-justifiable easily-understood actions of a citizenry under direct attack. Extreme? Only destroyers would think so.

    You beat me to it. Well and succinctly put!

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •