Comments on: Paul Helmke’s Heller Comments http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/ Where There's Snow, There's Firepower Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:08:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: JJR http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20594 JJR Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:40:55 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20594 I'd love to see Chicago, IL be the next legal target for our side. It's staggering to realize just how slow the wheels of justice turn when you stop to realize the original Heller case, which began as the Parker case, got kicked off back in 2001, and it's now 2008, so it may take nearly another decade to tear down Chicago's unconstitutional bans and win incorporation under the 14th Amendment...it's going to be a long, protracted struggle, but we shall overcome. I’d love to see Chicago, IL be the next legal target for our side. It’s staggering to realize just how slow the wheels of justice turn when you stop to realize the original Heller case, which began as the Parker case, got kicked off back in 2001, and it’s now 2008, so it may take nearly another decade to tear down Chicago’s unconstitutional bans and win incorporation under the 14th Amendment…it’s going to be a long, protracted struggle, but we shall overcome.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20591 Sebastian Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:30:04 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20591 You probably want to go for incorporation as soon as you can. If you wait until you have a body of law that means something, then judges will know what they are opening the door to. If the Supreme Court narrowly rules that DC's ban is a violation of the second amendment, and doesn't say much else, which I suspect they will do, if the judge thinks "Well, OK... If we incorporate this, a total ban is not allowed, but this won't risk upsetting a lot of other state regulation." that ought to be just fine by us. You probably want to go for incorporation as soon as you can. If you wait until you have a body of law that means something, then judges will know what they are opening the door to. If the Supreme Court narrowly rules that DC’s ban is a violation of the second amendment, and doesn’t say much else, which I suspect they will do, if the judge thinks “Well, OK… If we incorporate this, a total ban is not allowed, but this won’t risk upsetting a lot of other state regulation.” that ought to be just fine by us.

]]> By: Weer'd Beard http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20588 Weer'd Beard Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:06 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20588 I belive Helmke will be proposing a ban on "High Powered Questions" There is no reasonable person who would need to pose such questions as were done that day! ; ] I belive Helmke will be proposing a ban on “High Powered Questions”

There is no reasonable person who would need to pose such questions as were done that day!

; ]

]]> By: Brad http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20586 Brad Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:45:43 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/20/paul-helmkes-heller-comments/#comment-20586 Perhaps the next logical step for pro-gun litigation after D.C. v. Heller is not to go after a state law (via incorporation with the 14th Amendment). Maybe a follow-up lawsuit against the awful Washington D.C. "assault-weapon" ban is better strategy! Perhaps the next logical step for pro-gun litigation after D.C. v. Heller is not to go after a state law (via incorporation with the 14th Amendment). Maybe a follow-up lawsuit against the awful Washington D.C. “assault-weapon” ban is better strategy!

]]>