« Video from Blackwater Gun Blogger Weekend | Main | False flag operations enter the election »
District court rulings post-Heller
The Volokh Conspiracy has discussions of Industrious v. Cauley, and US v. Yanecy, both prohibited person prosecutions.
Industrious strangely cites the Parker Court of Appeals dissent as if it was the rule of Heller -- and botches the dissent at that (seeming to think it means the 2A only applies in DC, when the dissent claimed the 2A didn't apply in DC).
Yancey suggests that we'll see a return of what happened in Lopez: lower courts taking a Supreme Court ruling that they dislike and treating it as incredibly narrow (in that case's aftermath, finding that the ruling only applies to firearms possessed in a school zone, since the ruling mentioned that schools were traditionally a State/local matter, and refusing to extend its limitations on the commerce power to any other setting).
The holding is hardly exceptional: the 2A doesn't forbid laws against possessing guns while using illicit drugs. But the language, "Heller stands only for the proposition that the District of Columbia cannot constitutionally ban handgun possession in the home for use in self-defense by persons not otherwise prohibited from gun possession" is what gives concern.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
It would set a horrible precedent from the government's perspective. Acknowledging that there was no preexisting constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate or prohibit drugs might cast serious doubt on 99% of the things they currently do.
For that matter, where is the enabling legislation for the federal income tax? I think that's the right term; the intermediate legislation between the constitutional amendment and the IRS regs.
New Second Amendment case from a US merchant seaman's point of view was filed Monday, Oct 6, 2008: Hamrick v. President Bush, US District Court fot DC, No. 08-cv-1698, assigned to Judge Sullivan.
I have filed prelimary motions. Among them is for a court appointed Civil Gideon attorney competent in constitutional law, Vienna convention on the Law of Treties. Vienna convention on the Law of Treties Between States ana Intl Orgs and between Intl Orgs
My lawsuit has everything in it. It is like Ragu Spagetthi Sauce . . . "It's in there."
Ah, but in light of the 18th amendment, where is the authority to make the drugs illicit? It cannot be the commerce clause since the commerce clause was in existence before the 18th amendment. Thus the laws making the drugs illicit are void, which I believe would make the firearms/illicit drug laws void.
But then I believe in the text of the Constitution and not a bunch of hoodoo voodoo mumbo jumbo crap from some folks dressed in black robes.
And WHY, WHY, WHY do people continue to think the 2nd Amendment is about handguns or long guns? The amendment is about ARMS, much more than handguns, long guns and such. You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but fool with me and you'll get bit.
About Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban
June 26, 2008
Gary Emerling
The Washington Times
In February 2003, special police officer Dick Anthony Heller and five other residents sued the city in U.S. District Court, hoping to win the right to keep handguns and an assembled shotgun in their homes for self-defense.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, appointed to his post by President Clinton in 1994, dismissed the case about a year later. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision in March of last year with a 2-1 ruling.
MY COMMENTARY: Are all judges at the U.S. District Court for DC anti-Second Amendment? Every case that I have filed at the U.S. District Court for DC has been assigned to anti-Second Amendment judges.
Well, here I go again with my Motion for Recusal.
> My lawsuit has everything in it. It is like Ragu Spagetthi Sauce . . . "It's in there."
Which makes it a horrible idea.
Hamrick is basically Sara Brady's dream. He's a pro-gun nutcase.
The only gun case I have (need, want) is one with a high powered, tactically scoped, bull-barrelled rifle in it.
Alcohol required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government any power over. Where is the amendment granting congress that authority over other drugs? How can an unconstitutional series of laws remove the preexisting right to own a weapon? I'm sure that there would be enough support to pass such an amendment if only they'd have the balls to try instead of pretending they did it already.
Haven't read these yet, but somehow I doubt they mention that.