« Winnetka IL repeals its handgun ban | Main | Obama's AG nominee: gun shows are for terrorists »
Heller symposium
Attended it tonight, at George Mason Univ. School of Law. Most was about things I already knew, but I did get to meet Dick Heller,
Then there was Dennis Hennigan of Brady Campaign. He was explaining hiow Heller was actually a good thing for them, since now they could pass various forms of legislation without anyone being able to argue it will lead to confiscation. Unfortunately time ran out in the Q-and-As before I could ask him "If Heller is such a great thing for you, policy-wise, does this mean you are going to support incorporation and application to the States? Wouldn't that be even better for you?"
A friend pointed out an amusing incongruity. The event was held in the Robert Levy rotunda. Levy was one of the attorneys for Parker/Heller, and there's a plaque to him in the hall. There is also a plaque to the law school's first dean. Who wrote the first law review article arguing for a collective rights view, back in the 1930s.
The two plaques are nearly facing each other across the hall.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
The whole time Hennigan was talking about how Heller gives his ilk a green light on the whole agenda short of a ban, and how gun owners aren't going to mind because there's no longer any slippery slope, I was thinking, "yeah, keep thinking that."
The incongruity of two plaques facing each other representing the pro-gun and anti-gun is itself a statement on society's refusal to accept the basic fundamental human right of armed self-defense through the exercise of the human right to keep and bear arms.
Risking the accusation that I am playing the role of an amateur sociologist it is basic human nature for one subset of society to dominate and intimidate another subset of that society. Hence gangs of all stripes from the socially and politically benign to the murderously psychopathic. Just look at the pirates of Somalia (only because I am a U.S. merchant seaman presenting my prediction that piracy can just as easily pop up in the Western hemisphere, i.e., Venezuala, or perhaps even Panama on the suppostion that the global or regional economy takes a dive sometime in the future.)
The academic community and the judicial system will forever be in a state of chaotic agitation because there will never be a 100% agreement on the Second Amendment as a constitutional right nor as a human right.
My Second Amendment cases in the federal courts and at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights present the Second Amendment as a human right. If Obama is allowed to take office his appointment of anti-gun Erich Holder will mean that I will lose my Second Amendment case in the federal court if I do not get public support and support from the NRA.
A stand-alone individual pushing a Second Amendment case on his own without an attorney is a sitting duck for dismissal. And yet, my Second Amendment case is the perfect case for the NRA. The NRA is going to let this "Golden Goose" die by dismissal? Why?
I have new pages up at my own blog:
http://AmericanCommonDefenceReview.WordPress.com
I need public support to persuade the NRA to get off their ass and get involved with my case.
I really wanted someone to ask Obama this question: Now that Heller has established the right to keep and bear arms as an individual civil right, would his administration defend such rights as vigorously as our other sacred rights to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to vote. If not, on what basis do you distinguish fundamental rights under the Second Amendment? It seems doubtful that it will happen but a strict scrutiny standard should be applied here as it is applied to the right to free speech.
Dear President-Elect Obama:
Congratulations on your election. I am writing regarding the choice of Eric Holder for Attorney General. As he would be the nation's top law enforcement officer, I am deeply concerned about Mr. Holder's lack of respect for second amendment rights.
During your campaign, you made it abundantly clear that you supported the second amendment, that you agreed with the Heller decision, and that you would protect American's fundamental right to bear arms.
However, Mr. Holder submitted an amicus brief to the supreme court, wherein he supported the sophisticated collective rights position (as did former Attorney General Reno). In effect, Mr. Holder's position renders the amendment a dead-letter, protecting no meaningful right whatsoever. He opposed the position of the supreme court majority ... a position you claim to support.
How do you reconcile your promises to respect and uphold the second amendment, while chosing an Attorney General who does not?
This is an important issue and I very much would like an explanation.
Sincerely,
The irony is, the answer to the question about incorporation benefiting gun control is "YES".
Think about it...if gun bans (outright or effective) are off the table, it becomes a lot easier to compromise. What would we trade for a national preemptive act?
I am not sure why Obama wouldn't be allowed to be
to assume office Done?
"A friend pointed out an amusing incongruity. The event was held in the Robert Levy rotunda. Levy was one of the attorneys for Parker/Heller, and there's a plaque to him in the hall. There is also a plaque to the law school's first dean. Who wrote the first law review article arguing for a collective rights view, back in the 1930s.
The two plaques are nearly facing each other across the hall."
Historical irony of this sort is the BEST kind!
:)
> I need public support to persuade the NRA to get off their ass and get involved with my case.
Since you're doing the bidding of the Brady bunch, why don't you ask one of their astro-turf organizations for help?
Can the Heller symposium be watched on the net?
My take on the symposium is similar to David's. Handgun bans are off the table, but everything else is A-OK. The pro-control advocates think the Heller case was wrongly decided and that they were correct all along. My reason for attending was to determine how the pro-controllers would react to it.
Their reaction is interesting because the dissent relied for historical arguments on the Rakove historians' amicus, which contains clear errors of fact. These errors indicate that the controllers entire viewpoint is founded on misinformation and is off-track on the Bill of Rights nature of the Second Amendment.
As examples, the professional historians [in the Rakove brief] were wrong about how many period state bills of rights were part of the state constitution (they said 2 out of 8 when in fact it is 8 out of 8) - they were wrong about the state bills of rights not being legally binding (Madison's speech introducing the Bill of Rights amendments to Congress indicates their opinion on this matter is in direct conflict with his, and information on Mason indicates the same for him) - they relied on the English Bill of Rights to compare the American Bills of Rights to (a comparison Madison described as "innaplicable" because American Bills of Rights limit the legistlative branch and the EBR was never intended to do so) - they treat the state Bill of Rights provisions as if they were intended to grant power over arms to the states (they were intended to limit it) - finally, they went entirely off-track and treated the Second Amendment as a military provison rather than a Bill of Rights provision (it is a Bill of Rights provision).
In effect, the Rakove brief ignores most relevant historical evidence and explains away the rest. Instead, it builds an argument about the exclusively government controlled military nature of the militia. The militia were always civilians except when actually called out into service. The Second Amendment is not about militia in service during an emergency, it is about civilians and an armed populace capable of preventing tyranny by controlling the government's military forces. The history of the Second Amendment makes this perfectly clear, but that history is not to be found anywhere in either the Rakove brief or the Heller decision.
One of the pro-control speakers phrased himself in such a way as to indicate that he was open to evidence contradicting his position. I think he was Mr. Shors. If I get a chance to see the tape of the symposium or read a transcript, I may try to contact that person and present such evidence to him.
The rotunda was prominently named after Rober Levy, but I did not notice the plagues David mentions. Will have to check them out if ever get back to GMU's law school building.
If it wasn't by design it should be left alone to allow those that know the story to enjoy what dry humor is all about.