Subject: JPFO ALERT:SUBSTANTIAL VICTORY FOR AMERICAN GUN OWNERS?
From: "JPFO Webmaster" <wcsb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:09:10 -0400
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNER****P
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
June 27th 2008
JPFO ALERT:SUBSTANTIAL VICTORY FOR AMERICAN GUN OWNERS?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-discussion-board-substantial-victory-for-american-gun-owners/
The following post was written by Daniel L. Schmutter, an attorney
in West Orange, New Jersey. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Owner****p in sup****t of the
respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Having submitted an amicus curiae brief on the side of Respondent
Heller, I cannot help but conclude that today's decision represents
a substantial victory for American gun owners. Yet, to read the
press releases of various anti-gun interest groups and government
officials, you would think that the other side won today.
This is because the majority opinion clearly provides room for the
survival of gun laws which do not offend the fundamental self
defense purpose of the Second Amendment. Thus, as with other rules
of law, the real meat and potatoes, so to speak, will be found in
the many lawsuits to come. Accordingly, the anti-gun groups have
already taken up the gauntlet and broadly asserted that today's
decision affirms the validity of "reasonable" efforts by
governments to control crime. Well, not so fast.
What the decision does recognize is that the right to keep and bear
arms is not absolute. So far that's nothing controversial.
Notwithstanding the fact that some folks would have liked a
decision that swept away gun laws en masse, I doubt that anyone
seriously following this issue expected that there was any
likelihood of that. Instead, those watching this issue were keenly
interested in the scope of the right and the standard of review to
be applied. Well, we got some information on both of those.
For instance, we know that outright handgun bans are now off the
table (federally, at least -- for now). We also know that self
defense is a key lynchpin of the right to keep and bear arms. We
also know that, at some level, the types of weapons protected by
the Second Amendment bear some relation****p to the extent to which
they are in common use.
Similarly, we know that the Court views certain types of laws as
likely valid, such as laws prohibiting possession of firearms by
felons or the mentally ill, or in school and government buildings.
Yet these are hardly the laws that proponents of gun control are
usually talking about when they refer to "reasonable" laws.
Typically, proponents of "reasonable" gun laws mean something far
more aggressive. Thus, when anti-gun groups hail today's decision
as affirming the right to enact "reasonable" gun measures, they
take a giant leap into what is truly a massive area of uncertainty.
The vast chasm between "ban on handguns" and "ban on felons with
handguns" is fertile ground for decades of litigation.
To be sure, Heller represents a very good decision establi****ng a
strong right to keep and bear arms. Yet it will require years of
litigation to define with any firm degree of utility for either
side. What is clearly true from the majority opinion, however, is
that no matter what happens, there will be a substantial realm that
will always remain solidly in the political arena. Considerable
room has been left for presumptively valid gun laws, and both sides
will have plenty to keep them busy going forward.
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080627.htm
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://*remove*members.fortunecity.com/vampire34/htmlconc.html)
|
