Heller: Discussion on the Dissent.

This is a discussion on Heller: Discussion on the Dissent. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Preface: I know the majority decision has been discussed in the Heller thread, but I would like to keep this thread focused on the dissent, ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: Heller: Discussion on the Dissent.

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894

    Heller: Discussion on the Dissent.

    Preface: I know the majority decision has been discussed in the Heller thread, but I would like to keep this thread focused on the dissent, or at least focused on Con-Law, in order for it not to duplicate other threads.

    I've been wanting to post this since the decision came out, but have not gotten a chance. While I do not mean to exclude any members of this forum because I know that everybody can provide insight, my questions are mostly for those who have read the full decision and/or have some background in Con-Law.

    Reading through the decision, and the dissent, if you were not told which one affirmed Heller and which one dissented, it seems to me it would be difficult to figure out. As good a job as Scalia did in the majority, I find it hard pressed to beat Stevens' dissent.

    Out of the two, Stevens' dissent was better articulated, better researched, and all together, better argued. And to tell you the truth, after reading the majority and minority opinions, I tend to agree with Stevens more than I do with Scalia.

    If only Stevens and Scalia agreed with who the 'militia' encompassed, we would have a 9-0 decision scrapping ALL gun-control laws.

    If you open the decision to a random page, it is difficult to realize who is arguing what. If you happen to open it to the dissent, it seems as if regulations on automatic rifles/assault weapons are unconstitutional, but if you happen to open it to the affirmation, it seems as if 'reasonable restrictions' are justified.

    It was very interesting to me that Stevens seemed to make an argument towards no limitations are constitutional, based on a militia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while Scalia seemed to make an argument that limitations are not only constitutional, but necessary.

    My question, and what I would like to open up for discussion, is: Did the dissenters intend to argue that if we are going to take 'this line'(i.e. the majority opinion), that most, if not all, regulations should be lifted?

    Justice Stevens repeatedly references military arms and arms that are useful to the military as being the 'arms' that the 2nd amendment protects, and yet Scalia, refers to arms as those being 'commonly used'. So, I ask, how would something be 'commonly used' if it was illegal or heavily restricted by unconstitutional laws to begin with?

    I also ask, if we are looking to have our 2nd Amendment Rights fully restored, should we look at the affirmation, or rather at the dissent? Justice Stevens presented a very compelling argument that any firearms that are useful to the militia cannot be regulated, and he backs up his stance with Miller.

    Was Stevens trying to go so far overboard that he did not think America would go for it, or was there not such a large difference in the opinions, as we might have originally thought?
    Last edited by Kerbouchard; July 8th, 2008 at 08:54 AM.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Has anybody read the dissent or commentary on it, and came up with a similiar or different conclusion?
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array MR D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    864
    I know that I have always been of the opinion that "Arms" were military in nature - IIRC the guys at Concord and Lexington were not on th firing line over a few muskets - but rather the Militia's Canon and Powder supplies...

    they were armed with he same style and types of arms as the best armed Army in the world (at that time - with the possible exception of the Ferguson Rifle - which only 1 company of Brits had)

    did the founders even remotely conceive of the types and styles of arms available today - No

    but, should the very government that is being protected against have the ability to regulate?

    Scalia is a lot smarter than I - but, I also see merit in some of Steven's reasoning - and his definition of arms is one specific area where I have to agree.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    My take is this:

    The Founding fathers intended that we be armed for self-defense and defense from invaders and tyrants, both foreign and domestic. Historic precedence supports this, even in the oath of office the President and every member of our armed forces takes.

    As for the weapons debate, and which are considered "commonly used" or exotic weapons subject to regulation, my take is this: If you were at Lexington and Concord talking to the commanders there and explained to them that you had weapons that could fire thirty times without reloading, and accurate and lethal to 300 yards do you think they would use them on the British? that answer is a slam dunk to me.

    As to the question of majority versus dissenting opinions, I think there is language on both sides of the decision that can and will be used in future court battles regarding the RKBA. Only time and history will tell the wisdom of such a decision.

    I personally look for Obama and his liberal buddies to try and bring another decision if he gets to appoint liberal justices to try and swing the court back in a liberal direction.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    I agree Kerbouchard - when I read the two arguments the dissent is clearly better written. I also think you are spot-on in assessing that they were "calling out" the majority - either you interpret it as an individual right unfettered, or you do not, to land somewhere in-between as the majority did was not acceptable to the dissent position.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  7. #6
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Out of the two, Stevens' dissent was better articulated, better researched, and all together, better argued. And to tell you the truth, after reading the majority and minority opinions, I tend to agree with Stevens more than I do with Scalia.
    If only Stevens and Scalia agreed with who the 'militia' encompassed, we would have a 9-0 decision scrapping ALL gun-control laws.
    I also thought their opinions were similar. However, as far as Stevens' opinion as better researched, I found two glaring factual errors in his opinion. On a second skim through Scalia's opinion he made exactly the same mistake!

    The first error regards the Miller decision:

    In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307
    U. S., at 178
    Miller was not convicted in the lower court. The district court quashed the indictment because they felt the indictment for transportation of the short barrel shotgun over state lines was a violation of the Second. It was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

    MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

    An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton

    {indictment omitted by SelfDefense}

    A duly interposed demurrer alleged: the National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [p177]

    The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
    The cause is here by direct appeal.
    The second factual error was that of the creation of the National Guard:

    In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating “ ‘the National Guard of the several States,’ ” Perpich, 496 U. S., at 341, and nn. 9"10; meanwhile, the dominant understanding of the Second Amendment’s inapplicability to private gun ownership continued well into the 20th century.
    The fact is that the President has no authority to create the National Guard and Roosevelt did no such thing. The Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard.

    If you open the decision to a random page, it is difficult to realize who is arguing what. If you happen to open it to the dissent, it seems as if regulations on automatic rifles/assault weapons are unconstitutional, but if you happen to open it to the affirmation, it seems as if 'reasonable restrictions' are justified.

    It was very interesting to me that Stevens seemed to make an argument towards no limitations are constitutional, based on a militia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while Scalia seemed to make an argument that limitations are not only constitutional, but necessary.
    That's not exactly true. Regarding Stevens' referral Miller again,

    The view of the Amendment we took in Miller"that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons"is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
    The problem with Miller is that Miller was dead and was not represented. The Court's comment that 'in the absence of evidence ... reasonable relationship...to the militia' was certainly not conclusive that the short barreled shothgun could not have appicability in the militia, only that no evidence was provided. If Miller were to have been alive when the Court heard the case then it might very well have had a completely different outcome.

    My question, and what I would like to open up for discussion, is: Did the dissenters intend to argue that if we are going to take 'this line'(i.e. the majority opinion), that most, if not all, regulations should be lifted?

    Justice Stevens repeatedly references military arms and arms that are useful to the military as being the 'arms' that the 2nd amendment protects, and yet Scalia, refers to arms as those being 'commonly used'. So, I ask, how would something be 'commonly used' if it was illegal or heavily restricted by unconstitutional laws to begin with?
    Justice Breyer, in his dissent, wrote something similar (and similar to the the other thread here.)

    According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In essence, the majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning.
    I also ask, if we are looking to have our 2nd Amendment Rights fully restored, should we look at the affirmation, or rather at the dissent? Justice Stevens presented a very compelling argument that any firearms that are useful to the militia cannot be regulated, and he backs up his stance with Miller.

    Was Stevens trying to go so far overboard that he did not think America would go for it, or was there not such a large difference in the opinions, as we might have originally thought?
    Stevens' argument hinged on two criteria. One, that militia being an active duty entity and only then would be subject to the Second's prohibition against infringement. And two, that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with self defense. Those were the two disinguishing points between Stevens and Scalia.

    I thought Stevens was compelling with his argument concerning 'bear arms.' His opinion was that the phrase had everything to do with military service and nothing to do with what we think of as carrying. Scalia's opinion was that the phrase required 'against' to have a military connotation. Stevens effectively refuted Scalia's assertion.

    All that said, the Second Amendment does not prohibit the states from enacting whatever gun control laws they want. Even Justice Breyer acknowledged that when he cited Nunn:
    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 246, 250"251 (1846) (striking down similarly broad ban on openly carrying weapons, based on erroneous view that the Federal Second Amendment applied to the States);

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    Quote Originally Posted by MR D View Post
    I know that I have always been of the opinion that "Arms" were military in nature - IIRC the guys at Concord and Lexington were not on th firing line over a few muskets - but rather the Militia's Canon and Powder supplies...

    they were armed with he same style and types of arms as the best armed Army in the world (at that time - with the possible exception of the Ferguson Rifle - which only 1 company of Brits had)

    did the founders even remotely conceive of the types and styles of arms available today - No

    but, should the very government that is being protected against have the ability to regulate?

    Scalia is a lot smarter than I - but, I also see merit in some of Steven's reasoning - and his definition of arms is one specific area where I have to agree.
    Think about it. The Brits wanted those weapons because they knew that without them, the colonists would be forced to comply with their demands. It was gun control in its purest form, CONTROL of the people.

    The ability for the government to "regulate" is only as good as the most anti-gun legislator at the time. This opens the slippery slope argument that one the regulations started, it could only get worse with time....which is exactly where we are today.
    Last edited by HotGuns; July 8th, 2008 at 10:06 PM.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #8
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    My take is this:

    The Founding fathers intended that we be armed for self-defense and defense from invaders and tyrants, both foreign and domestic. Historic precedence supports this, even in the oath of office the President and every member of our armed forces takes.

    As for the weapons debate, and which are considered "commonly used" or exotic weapons subject to regulation, my take is this: If you were at Lexington and Concord talking to the commanders there and explained to them that you had weapons that could fire thirty times without reloading, and accurate and lethal to 300 yards do you think they would use them on the British? that answer is a slam dunk to me.

    As to the question of majority versus dissenting opinions, I think there is language on both sides of the decision that can and will be used in future court battles regarding the RKBA. Only time and history will tell the wisdom of such a decision.
    If the fate of a country resided on its "militia" or even weighed heavily on it, wouldnt it stand to reason that the best weapons of that period would be used?

    Therefore, regualting weapons because they are "military" in nature is a flawed argument.

    Think about it.

    Fifty years from now when the Chinese are starving and they move on America, would you want a semi auto AR-15 or would you rather have a full auto M-16.

    Commonly used weapons means weapons that are in use at the time...by armies, by citizens.

    This is common sense thinking. I dont expect most people to understand it, because some people make a career of overly complicating things.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The ability for the government to "regulate" is only as good as the most anit-gun legislator at the time. This opens the slippery slope argument that one the regulations started, it could only get worse with time....which is exactly where we are today.
    The facts refute your negative prognostication. For the last couple of decades more states have passed laws allowing concealed carry and many states have passed the 'castle doctrine.' And now Washington DC must rescind their handgun ban.

    It seems we are exactly at the point where gun control laws have been and continue to be relaxed.

  11. #10
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    If the fate of a country resided on its "militia" or even weighed heavily on it, wouldnt it stand to reason that the best weapons of that period would be used?

    Therefore, regualting weapons because they are "military" in nature is a flawed argument.
    But that was not the argument. In fact, just the opposite was the argument. The Court's Miller opinion was that the short barreled shotgun was not military in nature and therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment.

    Scalia's arguent was that the citizens would bring common weapons when called to duty. Concerning small arms, those were the best the military had. In reality, the militia was the military as there was no standing army.

  12. #11
    Member Array conwic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    37
    [QUOTE=Kerbouchard;777548] Reading through the decision, Out of the two, Stevens' dissent was better articulated, better researched, and all together, better argued. "

    I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. As I remember his dissent, he starts off by accepting that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. ( Note word RIGHT.) Then Stevens spends the rest of his dissent explaining how though this right exists, it cannot be exercised except at the pleasure of the government. He states that the government may regulate this right as it sees fit, even to the point of abolishing it. So, this right is in his view a privilage to be enjoyed at the pleasure of the government, not a right as say freedom of speech or due process.

    He then further confuses things by talking about how the second amendment has a purely military purpose and is in fact not a right but an individual responsibility - a colonial version of the draft- which he apparently thinks the founding fathers slipped in to the bill of rights in a fit of absent mindedness. In his opinion, it only serves to guarentees the "right' to be a part time soldier, which is no right at all. He tops it all off by suggesting a new standard of judicial review appliciable only to the second amendment, a free standing test where every judge is free to decide if the second amendment right he talked of in the first paragraph is worth upholding in a specific case or if the government's announced intent in passing a law out weighs the right of the people he affirmed in the opening of his dissent. Now, does anyone here think he would apply such a loose standard to any other part of the constitution? Of course not; he likes the rest of the consititution. It is clear from his dissent that he doesn't like the second amendment and simply wishes it would go away.

    I personally found Stevens dissent to be both poorly reasoned and dishonest ( his references to laws about not firing a firearm to celebrite Christmas or storing gun powder in the ground floor of a dwelling being a support for gun regulation instead of the regulations of drunks and fire hazards, his instance that "the people" in the second amendmant means a group different from " the people " in the first or fourth amendment, or his opinion that the phrase " bear arms" in the second amendment was purely a military phrase and cannot mean what it says). I thought it the work of a political hack.

    conwic

  13. #12
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by conwic View Post
    I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. As I remember his dissent, he starts off by accepting that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. ( Note word RIGHT.) Then Stevens spends the rest of his dissent explaining how though this right exists, it cannot be exercised except at the pleasure of the government. He states that the government may regulate this right as it sees fit, even to the point of abolishing it. So, this right is in his view a privilage to be enjoyed at the pleasure of the government, not a right as say freedom of speech or due process.

    He then further confuses things by talking about how the second amendment has a purely military purpose and is in fact not a right but an individual responsibility - a colonial version of the draft- which he apparently thinks the founding fathers slipped in to the bill of rights in a fit of absent mindedness. In his opinion, it only serves to guarentees the "right' to be a part time soldier, which is no right at all. He tops it all off by suggesting a new standard of judicial review appliciable only to the second amendment, a free standing test where every judge is free to decide if the second amendment right he talked of in the first paragraph is worth upholding in a specific case or if the government's announced intent in passing a law out weighs the right of the people he affirmed in the opening of his dissent. Now, does anyone here think he would apply such a loose standard to any other part of the constitution? Of course not; he likes the rest of the consititution. It is clear from his dissent that he doesn't like the second amendment and simply wishes it would go away.

    I personally found Stevens dissent to be both poorly reasoned and dishonest ( his references to laws about not firing a firearm to celebrite Christmas or storing gun powder in the ground floor of a dwelling being a support for gun regulation instead of the regulations of drunks and fire hazards, his instance that "the people" in the second amendmant means a group different from " the people " in the first or fourth amendment, or his opinion that the phrase " bear arms" in the second amendment was purely a military phrase and cannot mean what it says). I thought it the work of a political hack.
    I think you have merged the two separate dissenting opinions. Breyer's dissent included references to storing powder and illegal discharge (which, of course, is a violating irrespecitve of the Second Amendment.) Stevens' opinion included the fact that 'bear arms' is a military phrase, which was a very compelling argument.

    It was Breyer who thought it was necessary to weigh the state's interests in solving a crime problem with the Second Amendment. That was not in Stevens' dissent.

    And yes, the Second Amendment is military in its intent. Notice the word 'militia. And that intent prohibits the Federal government from infringing on our God given right to keep and bear arms.

  14. #13
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The facts refute your negative prognostication. For the last couple of decades more states have passed laws allowing concealed carry and many states have passed the 'castle doctrine.' And now Washington DC must rescind their handgun ban.

    It seems we are exactly at the point where gun control laws have been and continue to be relaxed.
    Not exactly.

    Its the States governments have been relaxing concealed carry laws.

    The Federal Government has done nothing but tighten the noose. Even now the Democrats talk of re initiating the "assault weapons ban"that was only passed the first time because the Republicans
    insisted that a sunset clause be added. If Obama gets in, lets see what happens then. I'd be willing to be that the gun laws dont get any better.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    But that was not the argument. In fact, just the opposite was the argument. The Court's Miller opinion was that the short barreled shotgun was not military in nature and therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment.

    Scalia's arguent was that the citizens would bring common weapons when called to duty. Concerning small arms, those were the best the military had. In reality, the militia was the military as there was no standing army.

    Another flawed argument.

    "Sawed off" shotguns were alot more common back in the day before they were regulated. It was not uncommon for tunnel rats during the Vietnam era to use short barreled shotguns when entering into tunnels due to their effectiveness in close quarters. As such, it could be argued that they were "military in nature" as they were used by proffesional soldiers in a standing Army.

    As for not being "military in nature" the Second Amendment of the Constitution says nothing about that. Generally, any ARM that could be carried by any member of the Militia would be considered as legitimate.Barrel length had nothing to do with it.

    That case was in fact a Supreme Court case that did infringe on the "Right to bear Arms".

    Last time I read it, the Second Amendment did'nt mention anything about barrel length. It did say SHALL NOT be infringed.
    I am missing something ?
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #15
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Another flawed argument.

    "Sawed off" shotguns were alot more common back in the day before they were regulated. It was not uncommon for tunnel rats during the Vietnam era to use short barreled shotguns when entering into tunnels due to their effectiveness in close quarters. As such, it could be argued that they were "military in nature" as they were used by proffesional soldiers in a standing Army.
    I think you are confusing the two separate arguments. The Miller case was the short barreled shotgun case and it had nothing to do with whether it was common. Reynolds was presented no evidence that a short barreled shotgun was military in nature. The reason there was no evidence was that no case was presented by the defense. Miller was dead. The Miller opinion concluded that if a firearm were not relevant to a miliary scenario then it was not subject to Second Amendment protection.

    Scalia, on the other hand, wrote that only common weapons that were owned by individuals comprised the protected class. As others, including Breyer in dissent noted, weapons cannot be common if they are banned.

    If we take the two Court opinions together to determine the protected class we must conclude that only commonweapons of utility in the military are protected against infringement by the Federal government. Of course, that allows banning machine guns since they are not common and, still sawed off shotguns since no evidence was presented that they could be usd in a military sense.

    The fact that the Court opinion does not limit state governments and the fact that virtually every gun control law (except for the DC handgun ban) is unaffected, it appears the euphoria from the Heller opinion was a bit premature.

    As for not being "military in nature" the Second Amendment of the Constitution says nothing about that. Generally, any ARM that could be carried by any member of the Militia would be considered as legitimate.Barrel length had nothing to do with it.

    That case was in fact a Supreme Court case that did infringe on the "Right to bear Arms".

    Last time I read it, the Second Amendment did'nt mention anything about barrel length. It did say SHALL NOT be infringed.
    I am missing something ?
    It does not mention barrel length but it does mention the miltia. It is a big fuss, which would never have occurred if the anti-Federalists would not have insisted on the government expanding Bill of Rights. They were completely unnecessary. Elect good, moral men to hold office and none of this would even be an issue at all.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Amar ridicules Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller
    By Anubis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 18th, 2008, 03:42 PM
  2. DC vs. Heller:ALL Related Discussion: VICTORY! Merged
    By BigEFan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 573
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 12:18 PM
  3. Who is Heller?
    By Maverickx50 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 1st, 2008, 07:07 AM
  4. Heller vs DC
    By Glock_19 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 04:51 PM
  5. Heller filed Brief
    By tabsr in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 02:12 AM