Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights

Heller v DC revisited - Do We Have a Right to Bear Arms?

April 18, 2021 Jeff Dowdle Episode 67
Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights
Heller v DC revisited - Do We Have a Right to Bear Arms?
Show Notes Transcript

In this episode we revisit the 2008 2nd Amendment case Heller v DC and discuss whether we have a right to bear arms.
Find our Representative
Join me on Parler Social Media!
email me at [email protected]
Follow me on Telegram
subscribe to my newsletter
Check out our new apparel
Follow me on MeWe
Follow me on Gab
Follow me on Clouthub

Support the show (

Welcome to does she podcast? My name is Jeff and I've been a licensed firearm dealer for the last 13 years in this podcast. We talk about all things related to the second amendment, as well as we might throw in a sports story or something going on in the news of the day. So today is Sunday and I'm jumping on to do another quick little podcast. And this is really a follow-up to the last one that we did that we talked about where the, the effort by the left to pack the court to add a four new justices to the Supreme court under their effort under their justification. I guess that should say that they are unpacking the court because they believe that during the the Trump administration that we improperly added to justices. So their justification is they're actually unpacking the court, but we're not going to go into that. But I did think about what the potential that we might actually be picking up a second amendment case this year. I thought it'd be a good idea to visit the last second amendment case that was heard by the Supreme court. And that was Heller versus. DC in 2008, but before we go any further, let us just talk about what cases they may pick up and how Heller's going to play into it. So the first one is out there right now with the New York state rifle and pistol association versus Berlin, which has been pending the review of the SCOTUS for some time now. And this regarding this, this case has challenges. New York's requirement for applicants to demonstrate a quote unquote, proper costs to carry a firearm in New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants for new York's practice is unconstitutional because the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to all the people in the brief argues, not just to the select. The view that the state deems worthy. And then very similarly to the one that we just recently had with young V Hawaii and on the basis is very similar to the ninth circuit recently ruled in favor of the defendant saying that the Hawaiians long-term standing laws that go beyond the time before Hawaii was even territory supported the restrictions that were being placed on people to get licensed, to carry Parents. So both of these cases essentially say that an individual does not have the right to bear arms. So in 2008, the use of the U S Supreme court's decision and the district of Columbia versus Heller directly impacted only a handful of gun owners, but it was one of the most significant second amendment rulings in the country's history. Although the Hillary decision only specifically addressed gun ownership by residents of federal enclaves, like Washington DC, it marked the first time the nation's highest court gave it to answer on whether the second amendment provides. An individual with the right to keep and bear arms. So just a few facts about DC versus Heller. It was argued March 18, 2008. That decision was issued June 26, 2008. Key questions in that case, where did the provisions of the district Columbia's code that restricted the licensing of handguns and required licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept unfunctional to be kept non-functional. Did it violate the second amendment, the majority decision? Was issued by justice Scalia, Roberts candy, Thomas and Alito, and the descending or justices Stevens, Souter Ginsburg, and Briar. So the ruling ruled that the Supreme court ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms and that the district's handgun ban and trigger lock requirements violated the second amendment. So a little background on the, on the case. So Dick Heller was a plaintiff in DC versus Heller. He was a licensed special police officer in Washington. It was issued and carried a handgun as part of his job. Yet federal law prevented him from owning and keeping a hand gun in his district of Columbia home. So Heller sought the help from the NRA. With a lawsuit to overturn the gun ban in DC, but he was unsuccessful in convincing the NRA to take up the case, but he did connect with the Cato Institute scholar, Robert Levy and levy planned a self-finance lawsuit to overturn the defect gun ban and hand selected six plaintiffs, including Hiller to challenge the law so that the Heller and his five co-plaintiffs one was Shelly Parker. The other was Tom Palmer Jillian St. Lawrence. Tracy ambo and George Lyon all filed their lawsuit in February, 2003. So the initial lawsuit was dismissed by the us district court in the district of Columbia. The court found that challenge to the constitutionality of DCS. The handgun ban was without merit, but the court of appeals for the district of Columbia reversed, the lower court's ruling four years later in a two to one decision in DC, very V Parker. The court court struck down sections of the 1975 firearms control regulation act for plaintiff Shelly Parker court ruled that portions of the law banning handgun ownership in DC and requiring that rifles be disassembled or bound by trigger lock were unconstitutional. Fade turnings in Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Wyoming, all joined levy and supportive Heller. And his co-plaintiffs the state attorney General's offices in Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, as well as representatives in Chicago, New York city and San Francisco joined in support of the district's gun ban. Not surprisingly after this. And ARA did decide to join the cause for the Hillary team while the Brady center to prevent gun violence, Kathy's support to the DC team. Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned the court to hear the case again, weeks after the appeals court ruling, his petition was rejected by 54 boat. And so DC then petition the Supreme court to hear the case. The case did technically change from DC versus Parker and the appeals court level to DC versus Heller at the Supreme court level, because the appeals court determined that only Heller's challenged the gun bans constitutionally had standing. The other five planets with plaintiffs were dismissed from the case. This didn't change the merit of the key. However, and the second amendment was set to take center stage at the U S Supreme court for the first time in generations. DC versus Heller garner national attention has the individuals and organizations both in favor of, and opposed to the gun ban lined up to support either side of the debate. The 2008 presidential election was just around the corner were Pocan candidate, candidate. John McCain joined a majority of us centers. 55 of them who signed a brief favoring Hiller while Democrat candidate. Barack Obama did not. The George W. Bush administration signed with the district Columbia with the us department of justice argument, that the case should be remanded by the Supreme court, but vice president, Dick Cheney broke from that stance by throwing in the brief, in support of Heller, a number of other safes joined the fight. In addition to those that catheter support for Heller earlier, including Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana. Sippy, Missouri Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia Washington, and West Virginia. Why in New York joined the state, supporting the district of Columbia. So the Supreme court side with Heller by a five to four majority of. Affirming the appeals courts, decision justice, Antonin Scalia delivered the court's opinion and with join my justice, chief justice, Roberts and justice, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thompson, Samuel Alito, junior justice. As Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Briar dissented. The court ruled that the district of Columbia must give hell or a license to possess a handgun inside the home. In the process, the court ruled that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and that district of Columbia handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the second amendment. The court's decision to not prohibit many existing federal limitations to gun ownership, including limitations for convicted felons in the middle Hill. It didn't affect limitation, preventing the possession of farms in schools and government buildings. So justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion and here just a few highlights from that opinion from the national review in 2008, the second amendment protects an individual, right? To possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that armed for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home. The phrase, the right of the people creates a strong presumption that the second amendment, right, is exercise individually and belongs to America in the phrase to keep and bear arms. The word arms extends prime aphasia to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding keep arms means have weapons. The phrase bear arms means to carry weapons and it was understood as part of the natural ride offense of one's person or house it in no way. Connotes participation in a structured military organization, justice Stevens claim that bear arms. Connotes the actual carrying of arms, but only in the service of an organized malicious incoherent, it gets arms to different meaning than once the phrase well-regulated militia means all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, a security of a free state meant security of a free politics, not security of each of the several States, the prefatory clause. Fits perfectly with the operative clause as the founding generation knew that the way tyrants had eliminate a militia was not by banning a militia, but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents DC's ban on handgun position violates the second amendment. Scalia stated the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the second amendment. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly, chosen by American society. For that lawful purpose, the prohibition extends more over to the home or the need for defense of family, self and property is most acute. The handgun is considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense a weapon. So. It has been since 2008 that this ruling came down. And the significance of this ruling, like I said, was that it finally called out and cleared up the standing of the second amendment does productive individual. Right. And not just a militia or a group. Right. And so this has been there for the the precedent since 2008, but case after case has come up because the, the, the case didn't really direct indicate that the, about the, the bearing of the arms and that whether or not that meant that you had the right to carry a concealed weapon or carry an unconcealed weapon. It just stated that you have a right to bear arms. So in many States they have violent, they have. Prevented the right to conceal carry. So if you have a right to bear arms, but you can't conceal, and that must mean you have to right to open carry. And in the case of, of the New York case they have made it so difficult to get a weapon, to carry that the belief is that this violates again, that second amendment. So it's very key here in see that we haven't had a second amendment case since 2008. And one of these Q2 cases may very well come before the Supreme court this year. The New York pistol. And rifle association case has been out there for a while. And there's a lot of debate on why the court hasn't chosen it yet. And part of it is that, are they waiting for a better case? Or are they just waiting for the, the, the best time to, to pick up and hear this case. So we have to be mindful of that and look and support that the justices they hear this, but they, again, this comes back to knowing how to come back to the packing of the court and how critical maintain painting that the solidarity, the. Supreme court and keeping it nine justices, not letting the left go about diluting the justices and. Giving them the ability now to control and the third area of our government and that's the Supreme court. And they would thus build a right, any law that they want written making it, regardless of whether it was constitutional or not. And knowing that the Supreme court would be able to side on their side. So keep an eye on these two cases. I will keep you updated on them. Let me know if you have any questions, but again, it is time since we haven't heard a case since 2008, I believe now is the time for the Supreme court to step up and hear a case and make it definitive that they right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. And it means to go out beyond it in public and carry either concealed or open carry weapon. Thanks for listening. Have a happy rest of your weekend. I will talk to you next week.