Whose giving up. All I have pointed out is that this historic decision is mostly laughable and won't do a whole hell of a lot because it left 19998 laws on the books and ALL because the damn Heller attorney said that the licensing scheme was constitutional if not capriciously or arbitrarily enforced. Huh? The WHOLE POINT of the lawsuit was to blow these prior-restraint permit/license bans out of the water.
The Supremes would HAVE BEEN FORCED to rule on licensing if the attorney hadn't conceded the point. This would have FORCED them to spell how much restraint could be placed on the right. And because it's an INDIVIDUAL right, the largest latitude would have been granted to stay consistent with the 1st Am and the rest of the jurisprudence model. Which would have crushed the prior-restraint model which virtually every gun control law has. At a bare minimum it would have blown out the whole "good cause to own a weapon" requirement in CCW permits, converting them all to Shall Issue. At a bare minimum it would have forced a recognition of Open Carry across the 50 states. As it is I cannot walk the breadth and length of California with a gun on my hip. This SC ruling doesn't change that fact EVEN THOUGH they recognize it as an individual right. Why? Because the f'ing attorney conceded the second most import aspect of the case. So the Supremes recognize it's an indivdual right -- big f'ing deal, because the ruling doesn't change anything. All it will do is change DC (mildly) because the f'ing local authority still concerns whether or not Heller gets a gun!!!! And Chicago. For the rest of us, nothing changes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Oppen To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Heller decision terrible Quoting Curt Howland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 26 June 2008, Robert D. Silvetz, M.D. was heard to say: >> What I find extraordinary if I don't need a permit for speaking why >> do I need a permit for carrying? >> >> Answer me that Supreme Court Fascists. > > That is entirely due to the attorney who argued the case. > > _HE_ gave them the benefit of licensing regardless of what the license > requires. > > When asked if licensing constituted infringement, he said "no". > > Another fight lost because of our "friends". L. Neil was prophetic. > > Curt- > Gods, you guys give up fast and easy! Did you REALLY think that one SCOTUS decision would be all it would take to make the other side say "Oh, well, guess we were wrong! See you on the shooting range!" and toddle off to the gun store to get tooled up? Getting things turned around is like manouvering the _Queen Mary_---you can change her course, but she's too big and too heavy to turn on a dime, and expecting her to be as nimble as a ski boat's futile. 'Way too many people have huge emotional stakes in the way things are, or at worst, aren't actively discontented with it: "Oh, what do I need a gun or the right to carry one for? This isn't the Wild West!" and until we quit purging each other over trivial bits of doctrine and start finding ways to reach out to those people, we're doomed to frustration. I'd say that this is one step on a long journey, and at least isn't a setback. ---------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
