In Refutation of the Four Heller Exceptions

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by KalashnikovJosh, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    As anyone who follows closely the fight against "gun control" knows,in 2008 a case reached the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) titled District of Colombia vs. Heller (Heller) which was pivotal in the battle for the inalienable right to self defense in America.

    And while the case forever put to pasture the absurd notion that the Second Amendment (2A) was a "collective right" as per the -up till now- common and blatant misinterpretation of the declarative preamble of the law "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State",there are still some absolutely glaring misapplications of historical context and outright lies contained in Heller that justify the odious "gun control" measures that the majority opinion headed by Justice Scalia,and indeed Alan Gura,counsel for Heller,did not wish to challenge.

    Basing his dicta on the concept of "reasonable regulations" that government may impose to "reasonably" restrict an inalienable right that government is clearly told it must not infringe upon,Scalia makes the case that these "long standing precedent" are as reasonable as asking people to not yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
    This has become the "exception" rule for denying individuals what Scalia himself said is an otherwise inalienable right to self defense and to keep and bear the tools of self defense.

    So far,NOT ONE SINGLE CASE brought before the court seeking to use Heller as a basis for challenging "gun control" has fully succeeded in challenging the odius Nazi GCA68 or other "gun control" measures which Scalia has deemed "reasonable" in the most blatant and contradictory example of Orwellian double speak to ever come from judicial activists in the SCOTUS.

    The Four Exceptions are these:

    The Felon Exception

    The Exception for the Mentally Ill

    The Exception for "Sensitive Places"

    The Exception for Commercial Regulation

    I would like to bring to the attention of the reader an excellent legal research paper by Carlton F. W. Larson from the University of California, Davis - School of Law.

    Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit

    You can download a .pdf of it here-

    Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: <i>District of Columbia v. Heller</i> and Judicial <i>Ipse Dixit</i> by Carlton Larson :: SSRN

    In this paper,Larson examines these "four exceptions" on the basis of the very same historical precedent that Scalia (supposedly) applied to reach the Heller ruling.

    To sum:

    There is absolutely no "longstanding historical precedent" supporting the "felon exception" worth any merit in a court of law,much less to base a ruling on without considering the polar opposite and its absolute dearth of evidence to the contrary.

    Despite the claim that in the colonial era and in the 18th century "felons were considered civilly dead" thus justifying the "revocation" of any rights,there is absolutely no specific law that can be found supporting any "longstanding precedent" that disarmed any class or group of people based on a conviction of any crime at all.
    In fact,convicts sent to America by the English as punishment for their crimes -a punishment called "transportation",were often seen as convicts here in America as well,treated as such,and I have even found one historical example of a man SENTENCED TO DEATH by the Crown,who's sentence was reduced to "transportation"-WHO SERVED HONORABLY IN THE COLONIAL ARMY DURING THE REVOLUTION AGAINST ENGLAND.

    This begs the question- how did he possibly serve in the Army if he was barred by any "longstanding precedent" that Scalia wishes to imagine took place in history,that denied him the use of arms as a convicted felon?

    Find here the story of Jonathan Ady,a convict who fought for Scalias' liberty to sit on the bench in the highest court and deny others the same-


    As the paper by Larson continues to explain,the earliest "felon exception" law was a state law -not federal- enacted by New York in 1897.

    Only those people in the "pro-gun community" who jealously deny others their natural rights for offenses they themselves most likely could be found guilty of on a bad day ("felonies" and crimes charged as "felonies" have grown exponentially since the 18th century -get caught speeding "too fast" and you can be charged with the "felony" of "reckless endangerment",or accidentally own a rifle or shotgun with too short a barrel without government permission,or perhaps loan a malfunctioning semiautomatic rifle to a friend,and see how fast you "lose" your rights) could continue to support such blatant violation of others' rights.

    There are also no historical laws setting any sort of "longstanding precedent" supporting the disarmament of the mentally ill.

    However,one remedy -and a sound one in my opinion- for keeping ANYONE too dangerous to own a firearm from doing harm,is to lock them up.
    in fact,wouldn't it be a better world if we did not need "gun control" laws because people deemed too dangerous to be free were kept behind bars where they cannot excersize their inalienable rights?

    If someone is SO DANGEROUS as to not be able to be trusted with firearms,should we then trust them with kitchen knives,automobiles and sporting equipment?

    And DESPITE the "gun laws",isn't it HIGHLY common to find such dangerous people set loose by the authorities in possession of arms anyway?

    Its simple.
    Dangerous people need to be locked up so they cannot harm others.

    For the rest of us- we are free to act on the inalienable rights granted to us by God,despite any blemishes in the past.

    Just like Jonathan Ady -a man convicted and sentenced to death by the crown,who then bore arms in support of our very nation and Liberty itself- was.

    As to the final 2 exceptions,the one regarding sensitive places can be justified by longstanding precedent,the "exception for commercial regulation" cannot.

    The point is,that even Scalia -considered by many to be a conservative that bases his rulings on originalist interpretation- sadly in this day and age,practices nothing less than activism for the status quo on the bench of the SCOTUS.

    Our rights,granted as a part of our humanity by our Creator,as inalienable from us as our immortal souls,and pre-existing the very idea of government; cannot be "taken away" by government any more than government grants them.
    Government cannot create or take away the natural rights that each of us have.
    It can only choose to violate them,or uphold them.

    But the People get the government they deserve.

    The question then becomes,what do we as Americans want?

    Rights dictated and "reasonably regulated" by the state,or a government that stays within the confines of the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution,which must also obey the limitations placed on it in the Bill of Rights?

    Its time we made a decision.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2011
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Excellent piece! Thanks for that...I'll be chewing on that for a while.

  3. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Thank you!
  4. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    That will get the old thinker going!! "People get the Government they deserve." My new sig. line!!
  5. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Thats a pretty old saying,"an oldie but goodie".:D

    Jefferson puts the concept quite well here-

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and expects what never was and never will be."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    and Franklin says something along the same lines-

    "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
    -Benjamin Franklin
  6. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    I don't know, I guess at Lawyer College they don't teach

    Attorneys the meaning of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

    Or something. Isn't American English required to be

    spoken and written by all our elected representatives?

    Are retard pills mandatory for anyone we vote into

  7. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Bump,in light of all the "reasonable regulation" thats going on in California and DC,which people are posting threads about lately.
  8. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Just surfing the web,listening to some freedom watch,and I came across this-

    So,the M1 Carbine,a weapon that served in WW2,Korea,and Vietnam,had been partially designed by a convicted felon. WHO DESIGNED THE PERTINENT SYSTEM IN PRISON!!!!!

    But I thought there was "longstanding precedent" to "take" a convicted felons rights,according to Scalia and the Heller ruling?

    So- "longstanding precedent" is now less then 60 years of law?

    And that precedent is supposed to be more longstanding then the Second Amendment - which has been the law since its ratification in 1787?

    The ruling in Heller STINKS of revisionist judicial activism- FROM THE SO CALLED "CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINALISTS" IN THE COURT.
  9. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    First, Williams could have worked on gun designs while not actually owning/possessing them. Second, long standing is relative in the eyes of the court. It depends on what they want to justify. Does not make it right.
  10. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    I would kindly disagree on the first point and sadly agree with the second.

    On the first:
    Very simply allow someone around you (with a felony on their record) hold one of your guns. Just like that you are now a felon and he/she is once again a felon. While it is possible to design something without physically holding it in your hands, its not practical even today with CNC machines never mind all those years ago.

    On the second:
    I'm only 22, so my personal "historical pretense" could be considered as long ago as 1989. Its all about perspective unfortunately.
  11. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    I'm sure we can all agree that the SCOTUS dropped a real hidden stinker with Heller,that "precedent" should in no way be construed to allow the abrogation of inalienable rights,and that there are MOST DEFINITELY some people out there that should not have guns (or kitchen knives,cars,sports equipment,chain saws,pens,pencils,etc)- and in turn,should be in the custody of the state; as determined by a FAIR and IMPARTIAL due process that includes a jury of one's PEERS.

    I'm not sure if I mentioned my specific problem with Heller,but its this:

    Once upon a time the hoplophobes used to yell and scream about how the Second Amendment was a "collective right",as they interpreted erroneously and intentionally that the preamble,the "militia part" of the 2A made it so.

    And it certainly DOES NOT-

    J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

    So then here comes Scalia with Heller.

    Heres my take on the process-
    They -the government- know damn well they'd better get to airing the correct side of things,cause the truth just comes out sooner or later anyway(what with that pesky old internet and all),and to deny what is an individual right from millions of gun owning Americas -some of whom are absolutely ready to refresh a certain tree- and they (the government again) damn well know it......would just be stupid.
    Unless they really want to foment Civil War 2 or something.Some of us know our rights damn well,and are SICK of watching them get abused and trampled upon.
    We know where these rights come from and we know who has the power to give and to take.and it AIN'T the damn government.

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "Rights come from GOD not the state. You have rights antecedent to any earthly governments rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws. Rights derived from the great legislator: God."
    -John Adams

    Now,thats just how I see things.

    The court,however,probably did not want to disturb the process,the system,in any great way.

    So they stuck to "precedent".

    But in order to do that,they had to LIE.

    Robo- when I'm talking here about the court claiming "long standing precedent" for "gun control",I'm speaking about this in their terms of what they defined "long standing precedent" specifically to be in this case.Their terms were historical,and if I'm not mistaken they went all the way to Blackstone and the Revolutionary War.

    Scalia twisted history and told a LIE when he claimed that that particular "longstanding historical precedent" supports "gun control".
    He practiced nothing less then revisionist history and judicial activism of the lowest degree.It was a despicable,sickening display of activism from the bench.

    There simply is no "longstanding historical precedent" in this regard- mostly,if you were convicted of a "felony" back in the day,you were hung.This is because a "felony" was pretty well defined as doing stuff that is very,very wrong- stuff like murder,rape,armed robbery- you know REAL and VERY EVIL crimes.
    (Should we go back to hanging criminals like this?I say YES,but then....I'm a "right wing nutjob".......)
    "Gun control" was holding your a$$ steady and reloading while waiting for the next attack in Napoleonic formation..........

    Anyway I digress-
    Heller came along and Scalia "interpreted" the law to suit his world view which in this case in my ever so humble opinion,it was placating both the left and the right.He had to admit that the 2A was an individual right,thus torpedoing the absurd notion that its somehow a "collective" privilege....but he opened up a Pandora's box with the "reasonable regulation" bull$hit.

    Now,the hoplophobes can claim that the Second Amendment AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT allows for "Gun control",even in regard to it protecting an INALIENABLE individual right.

    I don't know about you,but I'd rather have the hoplophobes making themselves look as ridiculously ignorant of history and the English language as they were when they claimed that the 2A was a "collectivist" privilege reserved to the states and the militia.You know- a government power right there in the first 3 articles of a paper that was originally drafted to preclude government power.

    The stupid looked good on them.It fit them like an expensively tailored suit.Anyone with half a brain could clearly see them wearing their stupid,everywhere they went.

    But NOW they can claim "reasonable regulation" and enact any kind of damn "gun control" they want,within "reason".

    And who gets to decide just what,exactly is within "reason"?

    Perhaps the plain meaning and intent of our Founders when they said that the Second shall not be infringed?

    Perhaps the definition of what inalienable means?

    Maybe,perhaps,the actual history of what "gun control" has been in this nation,as enacted on a federal level(and that is ZERO,zilch,nada until the damn 1930's! long standing my arse.....)?

    Or maybe the history of what "gun control" on a state level has been- you know,keeping all those evil slaves from bearing arms and then keeping all those evil black freedmen from the same?

    Or maybe even world history,where "gun control" has been the ever cherished tool of despotic tyrants that murder millions of their own unarmed citizenry?

    Nope.None of the above.


    They do.
    These two clowns,as life tenured "justices" (activists in black robes) get to decide.

    Thanks Scalia.

    The Second Amendment-

    A PRIVILEGE granted to you by government that is "reasonably regulated" by a bald a$$ copy of Weimar/Nazi era "gun control" and activists in black robes.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2011