Skip to main content

United States Supreme Court building at dawn.
United States Supreme Court building at dawn
In Lane v Holder three gun owners have appealed to the Supreme Court to answer this question.

Do consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating gun sales?

The plaintiffs are represented by Alan Gura, who won appeals in the landmark cases District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago. The petition was distributed for conference of October 11, 2013 but the Court has yet to announce whether they will hear the case.

Do you think guns should be regulated like books? Join us below the fold as we speculate on whether SCOTUS will agree to hear the appeal in Lane v. Holder.

We publish Open Threads on Sundays and Wednesdays. This is an Open Thread.

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

Lane v. Holder Documents
Petition for a writ of certiorari (filed May 28, 2013 - pdf 185KB).
QUESTION PRESENTED
Two courts of appeals have held that consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws regulating the sale of firearms. Another
court of appeals has held that consumers wishing to access gun ranges have standing to challenge a city ordinance prohibiting range operation. But the court below held that a criminal law prohibiting gun dealers from effecting retail transactions does not cause
consumers an injury-in-fact, and that consumer injuries occasioned by the prohibition are not traceable to the Government.

The question presented is: Whether consumers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws regulating the sale of firearms.

Brief amicus curiae of Community Association for Firearms Education (filed June 26, 2013 - pdf 392KB)
Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (filed July 1, 2013 - pdf 111KB)
Brief of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General in opposition (filed July 22, 2013 - pdf 96KB)
Reply of petitioners Michelle Lane, et al. (filed September 24, 2013 - pdf 90KB)
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 11, 2013.
New readers may want to start with TRPChicago's tutorial in 60 Cases and Counting: What Gun Case Will SCOTUS Take Next?
WHAT CASES GET HEARD?  Upwards of 8500 cases are presented to the Court during each nine month term. The Justices confer two or three times a month to decide which 80 or so cases they will take for briefing and oral argument. Before they vote, they accept briefs on the question whether the issues presented merit the Court's attention. Lane was scheduled for SCOTUS's conference in October but the Court did not announce whether it would take up the case; the NRA case is not yet on the conference calendar for consideration.

So ... how does the Court determine what it will hear? One thing the Court does particularly well is to control its work load in the face of pleas by some of the best and brightest advocates in the law profession. Only the issues most inviting to any four justices make the cut.

The Court has devised many ways to screen cases. A key factor is the significance of the issues presented. That invites disputes on precisely what issue(s) a given case presents. The Court has been known to reframe the question it wants the parties to address. Another key factor is whether lower court decisions have split on the issue, the Court being more disposed to resolve a case if there are conflicts among the Federal appellate courts. In Lane v. Holder, the government disputes Lane's contention that there are divided decisions. In NRA, as quoted above, the petitioners argue that lower Federal courts are "stubbornly" obstructing SCOTUS's Second Amendment holdings.

A vital touchstone for invoking Federal jurisdiction is "standing". Do the parties have a sufficient interest to bring the case? This concept is variously referred to as having a personal stake in the outcome or having suffered or been threatened with actual injury. This sounds like an elastic concept that could be flexibly applied, and it certainly is. The prospective buyers in Lane, for example, analogize their situation to books - if some statute prohibited selling books across state lines, is there any doubt that prospective buyers' First Amendment rights would be at risk?

When applied to constitutional litigation, considerations of standing help the courts control invitations to deal with what often are policy judgments within the purview of a legislature.

This business of accepting cases for review takes place for the most part (some cases can be taken as a matter of right) under the rubric of granting Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. All this means is whether SCOTUS will ask a lower court to send along its record and opinions for further review. (When SCOTUS asks, the answer is always Yes.) Granting "cert" is entirely within the Court's discretion. It does not give reasons for granting or refusing cert, prompting much frustrated speculation. And importantly, no precedential value is to be accorded the Court's action, despite the fact that not accepting the case leaves in place the decision reached by the lower court. Even after it hears the merits of a case, the Court can reject cert as "improvidently granted," which is the Court's law language for "oops."

...Continue reading 60 Cases and Counting: What Gun Case Will SCOTUS Take Next?

Since I am not an attorney I usually start by pinning down some basic terms.

DEFINITIONS from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
A petition that asks an appellate court to grant a writ of certiorari. This type of petition usually argues that a lower court has incorrectly decided an important question of law, and that the mistake should be fixed to prevent confusion in similar cases.
[A petition for certiorari is also used to request that SCOTUS resolve a difference of opinion among the lower Federal courts. There are 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. When a significant difference of opinion arises among them, it creates confusion in the law, since the outcome of a case will depend on where the case is heard. In legal Jargon that is called a "circuit court split".  Plaintiffs can appeal to SCOTUS to resolve the difference and clarify the law. Circuit court decisions are only binding over the district courts within the circuit court that decided the case, but SCOTUS decisions set binding precedent over the whole country.]
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
A writ of certiorari. orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. The word certioari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed."

STANDING
At the Federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). Only those with enough direct stake in an action or law have "standing" to challenge it. A decision that a party does not have sufficient stake to sue will commonly be put in terms of the party's lacking "standing".


Our prior diaries on gun laws appealing to SCOTUS for review





To add TRPChicago’s original diaries to your stream, click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to TRP's name.



Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:04 PM PST.

Also republished by notRKBA.

Poll

Should SCOTUS hear the appeal in Lane v. Holder

10%5 votes
62%31 votes
8%4 votes
6%3 votes
8%4 votes
4%2 votes
2%1 votes

| 50 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for talking about Petitions (19+ / 0-)

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:01:58 PM PST

  •  $10 says they won't take it. (4+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure the choices in the poll make much sense.  The only question being presented is WHO has the right to sue, not what the contents of regulations are.  That is, even if SCOTUS hears the case, there isn't going to be a direct effect on the substance of gun regulations.  

  •  Are you sure you are not a lawyer? (6+ / 0-)

    Good job.

    Guns are deadly weapons, but the fast track on getting rid of them may be having them totally unregulated.

    RGOs have shown they will not tolerate any regulation so it's looking like that will be the path we will walk. I would rather see a no tolerance for the weak hands, and slower kill speeds and ownership speeds, but I don't think that is meant to be.

    So now it is just a matter of the body count threshold.

    Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

    by 88kathy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:31:36 PM PST

    •  I think you mean IRGOs (7+ / 0-)

      Good evening, Kathy. I've been meaning to ask you what you mean by kill speed. That metaphor for limits on lethality could be developed a little further. I think I know what you mean, but I'm sure some don't see what you're driving at.

      FTR I know that:

      There are plenty of responsible gun owners who never forget their gun, never drop their gun, never lose their gun, never leave their gun lying around where children can get it.

      There are plenty of responsible gun owners who lock up the ammo separately from the guns, who spend considerable time training and maintaining their skills, who respect posted signs and who would not be caught dead attending a gun appreciation day at Starbucks. There are plenty of responsible gun owners who would never endorse the open carry rally at the Alamo.

      There are plenty of responsible gun owners who carry concealed, but without a round in the chamber, because the first step in any encounter is to take cover and assess the situation.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:41:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rate of fire is the term can touch back to. (5+ / 0-)

        Kill speed in what I use.

        The rate of fire for the guns referenced in the 2nd Amendment

        'The rate of fire ranged from one shot every fifteen to twenty seconds (3-4 shots per minute) with highly trained troops, to two shots per minute (one shot every 30 seconds) for inexperienced recruits.'
        5 minutes - 154 rounds fired.
        What would have taken a 2nd Amendment gun 38.5 minutes to 1 hour 17 minutes, took Lanza 5 minutes. Somewhere in this madness we need to limit kill speed.

        Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

        by 88kathy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:41:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is a prime argument (trigger warning) (9+ / 0-)

          for regulating high capacity magazines.

          They have a clear military purpose and post a clear hazard for civilians and for law enforcement. The utility of high capacity magazines is to lay down suppressive fire. In Adam Lanza's case he used suppressive fire to dismember first graders.

          Massacre is the correct term. I can have empathy for Adam Lanza's suffering, for Nancy Lanza's dilemma and still call it the Sandy Hook massacre.

          IMHO, mass shooting is already a white washed.version of this traumatic event. We should be calling it a massacre.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:51:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  if it doesn't have a military purpose (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            can it have a militia purpose?

            Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

            by happymisanthropy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:06:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nancy Lanza knew. The gun community did not (7+ / 0-)

            instill in her the importance of proper storage of guns and keeping guns out of the hands of someone who is struggling.

            So the people who always take of their guns enabled Nancy Lanza to operate under the belief that she was taking care of her guns, she wasn't.

            The gun community stands back and is shocked. And needs to show us all that we need to appreciate guns, but will not ask those in the ranks to actually bring themselves up to proper gun ownership levels.

            I am a loyal teamster but I am fairly certain I would not oppose a teamster getting fired for driving down the sidewalk.

            Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

            by 88kathy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:16:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
            The utility of high capacity magazines is to lay down suppressive fire. In Adam Lanza's case he used suppressive fire to dismember first graders.
            Suppressive fire is not used to dismember anyone. Suppressive fire is used to suppress an attacker so they cannot return fire. The Sandy Hook shooter also did not fire until empty, which is what someone does when they're utilizing suppressive fire. The Sandy Hook shooter was reloading part-way through magazines.

            The 30-round magazine has been standard for the AR-15 family of rifles since its introduction to the civilian market since 1963. In the past fifty years, an AR-15 rifle or similar has been used in less than 20% of mass shootings (according to Mother Jones' data on the subject, which unfortunately does not get any more detailed than the nebulous and inflammatory "assault weapon" term).

            And of course the one thing that keeps getting skipped over is the assumption that 30-round or larger magazines have some sort of magical killing power that makes them more lethal than any other firearm. The Navy Yard shooter (8 round shotgun), the Cumbria shooter in the UK (2 round shotgun and 5 round rifle) and more than a few others have managed to cause just as much carnage as most mass shooters and have exceeded the body count caused by others. This assumption that making any magazine with a capacity greater than 10 or 8 illegal will mitigate future injuries and deaths is purely fallacious.

            •  So why would you want them then? (4+ / 0-)

              What are they good for.

              Absolutely NOTHIN. as the song goes.

              Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

              by 88kathy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:55:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right, because if you don't like it (4+ / 0-)

                then it ain't no good. Never heard that one a thousand times before. Let me spell it out for you: I want them because there is not a sufficient argument against me having them. Just like terrorism isn't a good enough argument against the NSA not snooping through my email, like Muslim extremism isn't a good enough argument for the persecution and dirty tricks our Muslim citizens have been subjected to, a dozen or so criminal scumbags in fifty years are not sufficient justification to pull 30-round magazines off the market or make modern semi-auto rifles illegal or restricted. There's no "maybe it will work" here. We all ready have numerous examples of mass shooters who were able to slaughter just as many or more people without an "assault rifle" or "high capacity magazine" in the equation.

                But let's go after me and what I "need" rather than address any of the points I made. Make it personal. All part of the game. I'm sure the next bit will probably be something about asking me how many dead is enough before I consider it sufficient argument for more restrictions.

                •  I own them too but I'm real cynical about it (6+ / 0-)

                  I think they should ultimately be phased out. I see no civilian need for them at all.
                  If one bullet is killing power, then 30 is killing power times 30. I don't think its imposing on anyone's rights to restrict magazines to 20 rounds.
                  if this would make an Adam Lanza stop more to reload so much the better. Understand I'm not against magazine fed rifles, I just don't see why someone can't be happy with 20 round magazines (killing power x 20)
                  If they had 30 round magazines for the M16, they sure didn't during the Vietnam War until the very end. As a matter of fact for a while I carried an M2 carbine because it had 30 round magazines.
                  I own an M1 carbine now with 30 round magazines. They're legal.

                  thats how I think about it---I disagree with the law but I take advantage of it, same as the 2d amendment. I don't think the 2A is good for America but as long as its there, with the common interpretation as it is, I think liberals are foolish to cede all the guns in the country to the other side.

                  Happy just to be alive

                  by exlrrp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:21:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  " I do the worst, which I abhor" Seneca (4+ / 0-)

                    Happy just to be alive

                    by exlrrp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:23:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Good morning exlrrp, nice to see you (3+ / 0-)

                    Care to explain your choice of 20 rounds vs. 10 rounds?

                    E.g. DC has restricted magazines to 10 rounds, and that limit was recently upheld as constitutional by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

                    If someone needs more than 10 rounds for self defense they are in a world of trouble. And I think that is a very unlikely scenario for civilian self defense.

                    Accurate target selection and aim from the responsibility of the person bearing arms for self defense. I think 10 is a reasonable compromise, and more rounds than that creates a menace for others because it removes the burden of learning to shoot straight under pressure. Each of the extra rounds is a potential innocent bystander that didn't need to get shot.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:45:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This may help (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      https://www.youtube.com/...

                      This shows exactly how quickly various shooters can fire given magazine capacity limitations.  

                      I have been writing this for a long time but ever since the 1890s, rate of fire has been unrelated to magazine capacity.  Revolvers could be quickly reloaded with speed loaders, the first automatic pistol and military rifles used chargers.  The first modern pump-action shotgun was in production.  

                      That horse left the barn 100 years ago.  

                      Disciplined, accurate fire not volume matters.  You're not using the Devil's Pantbrush

                      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                      by DavidMS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:43:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  It won't stop there though (0+ / 0-)

                    You say 20. Lilith says 10 right below you, likely for the same reasons you say 20. NY state says 7, for similar reasons. This is the problem: there is no intention to stop at a number greater than zero. There will always be someone who has a reason why the number should be lower and they would rather talk about that than why people are getting shot in the first place. Why people are getting shot is unimportant. The gradual elimination of privately-owned firearms is.

                    Naturally, someone will shout "slippery slope", because this is all just paranoid conspiracy talk despite it actually happening in real-time and as a matter of public record.

                    thats how I think about it---I disagree with the law but I take advantage of it, same as the 2d amendment. I don't think the 2A is good for America but as long as its there, with the common interpretation as it is, I think liberals are foolish to cede all the guns in the country to the other side.
                    The 2nd Amendment is neutral. It's the application and exercise of it that's the issue. Firearms culture in the US could stand to be much healthier than it is. Unfortunately too many folks have reinterpreted "healthy" to mean "nonexistent or nearly so". I'd like it to be better, with less of the toxic masculinity and other right-wing baggage that's still far too present. They'd like it to be gone, completely, and by force if possible. I'd like a society with fewer desperately poor people who turn to crime, with a more robust social safety net (you know, like the exact opposite of what Any Rand wanted) and with less stigma around mental illness that leads to people like the Sandy Hook shooter's mother pretending there was nothing wrong with him. They just want the guns gone and they'll work on that other stuff after. Unless it's too expensive or it conflicts with other rights they think are worth defending.
                •  Ahhhhhhh, Ayn Rand would be proud (6+ / 0-)
                  Let me spell it out for you: I want them because there is not a sufficient argument against me having them.
                  The libertarian argument of "I deserve to have what I want, just because I want it, and the risk of harms to others doesn't bother me."

                  Here in the Firearms Law and Policy group we focus our justification not on personal whim, but on the arguments set forth in DC v. Heller. If you haven't read it, you really should? Like it or not, it's the law of the land.

                  District of Columbia v. Heller - Opinion

                  See section III, pp 54-55

                  Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:18:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've never heard that version... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MertvayaRuka

                    "There are four characteristics among people: One who says, "Mine is mine and yours is yours," that is the mark of the average person; some say that is the mark [of the people] of Sodom. [One who says,] "Mine is yours and yours is mine," [that is the mark of] an ignorant person. [He who says,] "Mine is yours and yours is yours," [that is the mark of] a godly [person]. [One who says,] "Yours is mine and mine is mine," [that is the mark of] an evil person."

                    - Talmud, Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 5, Mishnah 10

                    http://www.heritage.org.il/...

                    I have made bold the libertarian credo.  I can't call your description libertarianism because at its core libertarianism is a ideology that desires to return to feudal misrule.  Under feudalism only nobles and their lackeys had arms.  

                    Compare to Orwell:  Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That the rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage , is the symbol of democracy.  It is out job to see that it stays there.  

                    https://en.wikiquote.org/...

                    Emphasis in the original.. Orwell correctly notes that the core of democracy is trust between the elites and the people.  Take that away, and the rest of our rights follow.  I cannot see how promoting gun control is anything beyond failing to trust the people.  

                    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                    by DavidMS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:31:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Well, then... (4+ / 0-)

                  How many dead is enough before you consider it sufficient argument for more restrictions?

                  •  Even simpler - How many shot? (4+ / 0-)

                    120,000?
                    150,000?

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:34:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  How many dead. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DavidMS

                    This is another one of the standard refrains here. "How many have to die?". Yet this is a question not asked of those who fight against invasions of our privacy and fight to maintain our freedom to not have every single communication we make electronically scrutinized and sifted through.

                    Why? Are millions of sexually exploited children not enough for you to stop shielding the predators in your midst with your insistence on online anonymity and privacy? Are thousands dead from terrorism not enough when all you have to do is just give up a little bit of your privacy to allow the NSA to intercept their communications? Is it not a small price to pay? Is one life not worth the little inconvenience to you, worth giving up just a bit of what you've fought for? After all, it's for the children.

                    But you can't. And you won't. You'll just say "guns kill people, my computer doesn't", as if that ends the argument, as if it somehow erases all the people who utilize the rights you selectively champion to harm others. You don't have to be held accountable for them and you will not allow yourselves to be held accountable for them. Your rights are sacrosanct. Mine are an abomination that should not exist in a "civilized" society.

                    If you can't give me a number that would cause you to allow the abrogation of rights you hold dear, if you cannot in your mind justify curtailing those rights you currently enjoy despite all the harm done with them just because you don't get to see the bodies, because the human wreckage of it isn't splattered all over your television or computer screen but you would demand the same of me, you are a hypocrite. You take me to task for harm wrought by others and will not allow yourselves to be held to the same standard.

                •  So 20 dead children is not a good enough argument? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, TheFern
                  " I want them because there is not a sufficient argument against me having them."
                  For most people with a normal capacity for human emotion, 20 dead children is a good enough argument against assault-style rifles and large capacity magazines.

                  I guess I don't read enough newspapers: who ARE the other mass shooters who massacred 20 or more people without using an assault-style rifle or a high capacity magazine?  Enlighten me.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:21:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nice intimation of mental illness there (0+ / 0-)
                    For most people with a normal capacity for human emotion, 20 dead children is a good enough argument against assault-style rifles and large capacity magazines.
                    For most people with a normal capacity for human emotion, a 230 percent increase in the number of documented complaints of online enticement of children from 2004 to 2008 is a good enough argument against online privacy.

                    For most people with a normal capacity for human emotion, almost 3000 innocent people murdered on 9/11 is a good enough argument in favor of the Patriot Act and the War on Terror.

                    See, I can play this game too. Find the right facts and it becomes very easy to portray the people you're debating with as amoral sociopaths, only concerned with their own selfish needs no matter the cost to innocents. Certainly much easier than actually addressing what they're saying, so I can see the allure. Little too McCarthy for my taste though.

                    I guess I don't read enough newspapers: who ARE the other mass shooters who massacred 20 or more people without using an assault-style rifle or a high capacity magazine?  Enlighten me.
                    Off the top of my head, George Hennard and Seung-Hui Cho. Charles Whitman was stopped three short of twenty, in part by people returning fire. I'm sure you will find some fault with these examples, as I hold no illusions about enlightening someone who engages in personal attacks as a substitute for debate.
                    •  I am enlightened (0+ / 0-)

                      Thank you for telling me about the mass shooters George Hennard, Seung-Hui Cho; Mr. Whitman is a familiar name, of course.

                      Now Mr. Hennard used a Glock 17 pistol in his attack, and the Glock 17 is named (I think) for the standard magazine that holds 17 cartridges.  So I suggest a magazine of 17 cartridges qualifies as "high capacity" (tho' yes, less than 30) so maybe he "cheated" during the commission of his massacre.

                      But as you point out, it is possible to kill many people with even a bolt-action gun, which is why I suggest that ALL guns (not just "high capacity" guns) be strictly limited in sales and use.

                      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 06:12:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Too much "how" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DavidMS

                        not enough "why".

                        As we have all ready seen, you will tighten the grip of restrictions and people like Hennard, Cho, Whitman, Alexis and the rest will slip through its fingers. They will change tactics, change tools, adapt, shift, because they're playing a game whose rules they write as they go. You're trying to nail jello to a wall at room temperature. I would suggest reading the report from Sandy Hook that was just released. It goes into heavy detail about all the warning flags the shooter's mother ignored or excused, most likely due to the stigma surrounding mental illness. She preferred to pretend he was fine rather than risk being identified as the mother of a "defective" son. She enabled him to do what he did and would have enabled him to do what he did no matter what tools he would have had to substitute to accomplish his goal. Getting him help, not purchasing firearms for him, getting him flagged so he couldn't purchase them on his own, all of that would have made a greater difference than forcing him to choose a pump shotgun or bolt action rifle instead of an AR-15. It would have resulted in zero deaths instead of five or fifteen or twenty. That is what would have saved ALL of those children. Your half measures only accomplish something if saving lives isn't the actual goal.

            •  Thank you for this clarification (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, Smoh, WakeUpNeo

              Hello MR, thanks for dropping by.

              The Sandy Hook shooter also did not fire until empty, which is what someone does when they're utilizing suppressive fire. The Sandy Hook shooter was reloading part-way through magazines.
              Anyone who is trained to arms knows why Adam Lanza changed magazines before they were empty. For noobs, an empty magazine is the most vulnerable moment for a shooter.

              Adam had trained to be ready to deal with the police in such a way that he would be able to commit suicide in the end. His goal was to die famous, as an anti-hero. By reserving a few bullets in each magazine he was allowing for the possibility that the police could burst onto the scene at any moment and he would be able to shoot at them, to either kill them, or induce them to shoot and kill himself, or he would have the option to kill himself at the moment of his own choosing.

              Adam Lanza changed magazines before they were empty because he trained that way. He was prepared to die and was not willing to risk being caught with an empty gun in this his hands. He had plenty of ammunition, and had trained to keep his options open to the very end. His goal was to kill as many people as he could and to die by his own hand.

              Suppressive fire is used to suppress an attacker so they cannot return fire.  
              Let's unpack this for people who never fired a gun.

              First, according to Heller, the 2A covers small arms (colloquially known as "guns") for use by individuals when they exercise their right to self defense in their home.

              The competency and accuracy of the shooter matters. No one has any right under the 2A to create a menace with a gun when they exercise their right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

              It's arguable that because bullets easily punch through walls suppressive fire in a residential setting can easily injure others. For that reason, governments have a right to restrict suppressive fire in the interest of the general public's safety.

              If you can cite to any judicial opinion stating otherwise please link it; I would like to read it and write a diary on the arguments made therein.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:26:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, seriously (trigger warning) (4+ / 0-)

              When you call Sandy Hook a statistically insignificant mass shooting you are white washing what happened and are glossing over a central fact.

              Suppressive fire is not used to dismember anyone.
              IIRC, the average number of bullets was 11 bullets per body. Hollow point bullets, which are known to turn human flesh into mincemeat. John Lennon was killed with 4 hollow point bullets fired at close range. Modern medicine could not have saved him even if he had been shot on the operating table.

              Adam Lanza was an experienced rifleman. 2, 3 or 4 shots per body were sufficient to case death. The children and teachers were captive, they could not run, could not escape.

              You are failing to acknowledge that Adam knew exactly what he was doing with that gun. It wasn't just about killing, it was about mutilation of the bodies, many of them mutilated beyond recognition.

              It was a massacre, a pre-planned, intentional massacre of elementary school children. Adam Lanza didn't want to simply match or exceed the number of dead shot by the Norway shooter, Adam wanted to mutilate their bodies. And he used the suppressive fire capability for that purpose.

              That use of suppressive fire is not even lawful for the  military. I'm certain that mutilating bodies is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:31:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So which is it? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker
                It's arguable that because bullets easily punch through walls suppressive fire in a residential setting can easily injure others. For that reason, governments have a right to restrict suppressive fire in the interest of the general public's safety.
                So here's one version of "suppressive fire", indirect fire used to prevent an attacker from returning fire. In line with the definition of the term and recognizable to "Anyone who is trained to arms".

                Suppressive fire article on Wikipedia

                That use of suppressive fire is not even lawful for the  military. I'm certain that mutilating bodies is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
                And here we have the visceral, emotional definition, the one that has nothing to do with the actual definition. Suppressive fire is not direct. It does not involved "mutilating bodies". What you are doing here is basically trying to frame this issue thusly:

                1). 30-round magazines are only useful for suppressive fire.
                2). Suppressive fire is what the Sandy Hook shooter used to mutilate children
                3). Anyone who wants 30-round magazines available either wants to mutilate children in a similar fashion or is an enabler for those who want to mutilate children.

                You use words in your posts that I never have and attribute them to me, words like "statistically insignificant". The idea is to make me look cold, unfeeling, calculating. You describe my argument as "libertarian" and try to make me out to be some devotee of Ayn Rand with absolutely nothing to back it up. This is pretty much the type of response I predicted: more words are being spent on painting me as callous and selfish or on bloody, heart-rending imagery than anything else. Virtually nothing of the meat of my arguments is touched. Your use of the term "suppressive fire" is incorrect. Your assumption that no one could achieve that level of carnage without a semi-automatic rifle and 30-round magazines is incorrect. And your push to legislate based on the actions of a criminal few is just flat out wrong, as wrong as those who point to a few dozen welfare cheats and demand that everyone on public assistance be drug tested.

                IIRC, the average number of bullets was 11 bullets per body. Hollow point bullets, which are known to turn human flesh into mincemeat. John Lennon was killed with 4 hollow point bullets fired at close range. Modern medicine could not have saved him even if he had been shot on the operating table.
                They're also known to not overpenetrate through walls and hit neighbors when you're utilizing a firearm in self-defense. More manipulative language. More re-framing of the issue to draw emotional lines rather than factual ones.
                You are failing to acknowledge that Adam knew exactly what he was doing with that gun. It wasn't just about killing, it was about mutilation of the bodies, many of them mutilated beyond recognition.
                You recognize that he knew what he was doing, that he was familiar with firearms, that he planned this massacre, but somehow you believe he would not have succeeded if he couldn't have an AR-15 with 30-round magazines. You don't believe he would have found a way around that. You don't believe it would have been as bad or worse if he'd walked in there with a plain old 8-round pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. In the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, can you really believe that?
                •  My comments about Sandy Hook (4+ / 0-)

                  refer to what actually happened. I'm not the least bit interested in your fantasies of what Adam Lanza could have done with a different gun. There is a different group at Daily Kos that might welcome your diary on that topic. May I suggest you Kosmail KVoimakas, the leader of that group.

                  You've shown by your comments in my diaries a determination to whining and logorrhea that is ahem less than persuasive.

                  Have a nice evening.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:34:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I see (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DavidMS

                    pointing out scurrilous attacks on my character made in lieu of addressing my arguments is "whining" now.

                    I'm not the least bit interested in your fantasies of what Adam Lanza could have done with a different gun.
                    Yet your own assumptions of what was going through the Sandy Hook shooter's head at the time of the shooting are what, documented fact? There was nothing ever found regarding his plans. You have nothing but speculation regarding why he wasn't shooting until his magazines were empty. Just like you have nothing but speculation regarding what he would have done without an AR-15 and without 30-round magazines. You paint this florid picture of how he planned to go down in a blaze of glory, his mind always on potentially shooting it out with the cops, despite his never exchanging a single round with them even after seeing them.  

                    The difference between you and me is, I'm not trying to make public policy out of my speculation as if it's fact.

                    You've shown by your comments in my diaries a determination to whining and logorrhea that is ahem less than persuasive.
                    I apologize that what I'm trying to get across can't be condensed down to pithy little catchphrases like "kill speed" or "murder weapons". I also apologize if I've given you the impression that I'm trying to persuade you of anything. I don't try to persuade true believers. I provide a counterpoint and nothing more. You lot end up doing more of the persuading than you realize in your overly-personal responses. Good evening to you as well.
          •  Ditto to that (4+ / 0-)
            IMHO, mass shooting is already a white washed.version of this traumatic event. We should be calling it a massacre.
            I already do, don't know what else to call it but anything else is just parsing words

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:07:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's an argument against gun control, actually. (0+ / 0-)
            They have a clear military purpose and post a clear hazard for civilians and for law enforcement. The utility of high capacity magazines is to lay down suppressive fire.
            United States v. Miller

            ...where the defendant was convicted specifically  because the court believed that the weapon was not one that would find use in the military. Although as it turns out, that argument was factually flawed:

            Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.[6] Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during WWI and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
        •  Please document the guns specifically (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc

          referenced by the 2nd Amendment.

          Then after that, you can explain why the 2nd Amendment only covers those specific firearms but the 1st Amendment isn't confined to just the spoken voice, printing press and quill pen on parchment.

      •  I know there are plenty that never have butter (6+ / 0-)

        fingers and are in control, however the fact they protect those gun owners not suitable for gun ownership negates their benign-ness.

        They should be frothing for the surrender of guns from those who demonstrate incapacity.  

        Instead they come at me with every fiber of their being because I suggest some of the gun owners demonstrate incapacity for ownership and should be denied.

        Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

        by 88kathy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:47:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We're all guilty (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, DavidMS

        by association. That's why the "Responsible Gun Owner" said as snark thing has become a meme here. Muslims are not collectively responsible for those Muslims who turn to extremism. Feminists are not collectively responsible for those few who hate transgender folks. No other subgroup in society is held to the same bogus standard firearms owners are. No other group is looked at as "They're not murdering criminals, until they are". We're responsible, until we aren't. Every day the clock is ticking towards us inadvertently or purposely injuring or killing someone, something that, according to consensus here, is not a remote possibility but a concrete certainty despite any and all facts to the contrary.

  •  What's holding SCOTUS up deciding on review? (4+ / 0-)

    We can't know, of course, but speculation is interesting.

    The case has been on the Court's calendar for consideration since mid-October. It's not unheard of to withhold action in the conference the case is scheduled for, but it's not all that common, either.

    It takes four justices to grant a petition for cert. I assume there aren't four yet. But something has caused the Court to set this case aside for awhile.

    Another case en route? The underlying issue - a dealer rule -  isn't that interesting to most of the members of the Court? Something else?

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:39:32 PM PST

  •  Slightly OT: One hot shot (3+ / 0-)

    gun fetches big bucks at auction.

    •  Hi Neo! Open Thread - all topics welcome (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo, Glen The Plumber, Smoh
      A shotgun once owned by one of America's most famous Old West sharpshooters sold at auction Sunday in Dallas, Texas, for [...]

      A letter authenticating that the 16-gauge Parker Brothers Hammer shotgun once belonged to Annie Oakley.

      Annie Oakley's "16-Gauge Parker Brothers Hammer shotgun" was sold by Heritage Auctions to an unidentified telephone buyer, auction house officials said. The new owner also procured several documents affirming the weapon's authenticity, as well as its scabbard.

      There's your teaser, have to read the article to find out!

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:28:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (8+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, I suspect that a "consumer" (I assume that this means a prospective gun buyer) would have standing.

    On the other hand, the notion that laws that just "regulate" firearms are unconstitutional is, to me, laughable.  There is a long list of things whose sale is regulated by law: cars and trucks, some fertilizers and pesticides, prescription medicines, live animals (perhaps not well enough), gasoline and the like, liquor, cigarettes...the list goes on and on.

    •  ...none of which have an amendment... (0+ / 0-)

      ...specifically allowing you to have them.

      •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        There are limitations to our constitutional rights.  There are legal limits - black letter law - which limit what "free speech" you may engage in.

        You can have a gun.  That's fine with me.  But you can't walk into Wal*Mart and pick up a fully-automatic machine gun.  That's what's called a "reasonable limitation" on your 2nd Amendment rights.

        NYC has gotten it right.  Buy all the guns you want, but if you can't prove a reasonable need to carry one on the street, you're not allowed to do so.  That's another "reasonable limitation" on the 2nd Amendment.

        A firearm is deadly force.  We, as a society, have the ability and the incentive to regulate them.  We prohibit certain felons from having a gun.  Would you overturn that reasonable limitation?  We prohibit the mentally ill from having them.  Another limitation you want abolished?  When a person commits a crime with a gun, their firearms are confiscated from them.  Legally.  You wouldn't want to reverse THAT policy, would you?

        Not everybody here wants to send the Army to your house to take away your beautiful guns.  In fact, most people here aren't calling for anything like that.  What Americans want are laws and regulations which keep the killings to a minimum.

        Since the day of the Sandy Hook Massacre, not quite 11,000 Americans have lost their lives to gunshots.  We're on pace to hit the 11,000 mark by the anniversary of that horrible event.  Is the death of 11,000 Americans a year a good enough reason to regulate the weapons that are minting thousands of new corpses every year?  Will the laws and regulations Americans want absolutely prevent another Sandy Hook Massacre?  Of course not.  Will they have the real and serious potential to minimize such tragedies?  I believe so.  I also believe that sensible regulations will help decrease the carnage that happens on our streets every single damn day of the MF-ing year.

        Our nation went nuts over the 2900 people who died on 9/11.  We started two wars over it and have put insane policies in place because of it.  But SOME people oppose even the most sensible and reasonable measures to control the shootin' irons which have been responsible for over way over 100,000 dead Americans since that day.

        Nope.  I can't hang with that.  Some things must be regulated.  Hand cannons are certainly one of those things.

        Celtic Merlin
        Carlinist

        Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

        by Celtic Merlin on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:14:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you turn a totally blind eye (0+ / 0-)

          to the murder of 1000 - 2000 children via abortion that will occur just today.  When will there be enough bodies?  The hypocrisy is epic.

          •  Your concerns are noted (0+ / 0-)

            You can write a diary about your personal difficulty giving women the same rights of privacy over their bodies and medical decisions that men can take for granted.

            People who share your view can come and discuss your views.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That train left the station decades ago. (0+ / 0-)

            Women have a right to terminate a pregnancy.  That's the way it is.  It also isn't the SUBJECT of the diary.

            You want to discuss the SUBJECT of the diary?  I'll do that.  Would you like to discuss the subject of the comment I replied to?  I'll discuss that.  You want to fly off on some tangent unrelated to either of these topics - write your own diary about it.

            PLEASE write a diary about it!  It won't cost you a dime.

            Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

            by Celtic Merlin on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 09:55:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Voting and speech have plenty of regulations nt (0+ / 0-)

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:23:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This case questions the limit of "regulate" (0+ / 0-)

      It isn't a question of no regulation.  Per the briefs listed in the diary, the case is being made that the DC regulations are onerous and a deliberate and punitive impediment to lawful ownership.  The briefs contend that the level of regulation amounts to a defacto ban, which would be unlawful.

      Neither the courts, nor the legislature, have defined the allowable limits of regulation.  Until this changes, we will continue to have cases like this one.

      •  Yes, the case is about federal law (0+ / 0-)

        but is using DC gun law as a test case, I suppose, because DC has arguably the most strict gun laws in the country.

        Buying and registering a gun in DC is a royal pain in the ass.

        IANAL, so that's just my layman's understanding of the case.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:27:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site