Comments on: REFLECTIONS ON HELLER, Part One

By: Don in California

Don in California — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:30:08 +0000

I was extremely pleased with the decision. However, I was disappointed that it was such a close decision. I have owned a pistol since 1971. I would not be without one now. I live too close to the Mexican border to feel safe without one. I was not in the Special Forces, however I did spend 6 years in the Army and 14 in the USAF. The last 10 years was as a Special Agent with the USAF OSI and carried concealed as part of my duties. It is now a part of my wardrobe. Thank you for the excellent article.

By: Mas

Mas — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:04:55 +0000

Thanks, Tim.

best,

Mas

By: Tim Messerli

Tim Messerli — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:57:58 +0000

I will always remember where I was when JFK was shot: Ninth grade gym class, Nathan Eckstein Junior High School, Seattle Washington. And where I was when the Heller Decision came down: first day of LFI-1 course-Harrisburg PA. How special.

If you carry for self-protection, scrape the tuition money together and take the LFI-1 class. It will rank right up there in the top five most memorable things you have done during in your lifetime! It may also save your life.

Thanks Mass.

By: Anthony Forrest

Anthony Forrest — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:50:12 +0000

As a retired Special Operations soldier ( Green Beret ), I am just as pleased as I could be about the decision. It has been so long overdue. I understand that there are Americans out there that disagree with the decision but, I assure you it was a correct one. I have been afraid for so long that we were going to lose our right to own a gun for defense. I am telling you now, if you have never heard it before, there are groups and countries not so far away that want nothing more than to see the United States crawl. If we had lost that decision I am certain without a doubt that they would move on this country with all speed. It would make 911 look like a childs accident. Most people think that the military has our countries defense and that it is sufficient. I am here to tell you, our men and women are everywhere but here. It would not surprise me one little bit if we wake one morning to find groups had entered the United States and are leaving distruction in their wake. It is a simple fact that without the right to own and carry a gun in this country we would not be here today, or tomorrow. I was not and am not concerned as much with the crimanl elements in this country. Our police forces can and do a fine job. I am however worried with the groups and orginizations sitting across the border and across the gulf of mexico that are waiting and watching. Make no mistake, they do exsist and they are hell bent for our distruction. I have never been someone that hide my head when trouble came nor am I someone that goes looking for it. I won’t have to if we ever lose the right to own and carry a gun. Trouble will find you and me at home without a prayer. God Bless

By: Brogan

Brogan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:33:49 +0000

The decision seems good when you just read it. The problem is with the wording… “Reasonable Regulation”. They ruled that “Reasonable Regulation” is allowed as long as it’s not an out right ban.

That’s too broad and vague a term to be in such a crucial decision. What’s reasonable to one is not to another, who decides? It also leaves a way to essentially ban guns without banning them. Let me explain. In this day and age of “spin” like saying “Enhanced Interrogation” instead of torture and using executive privilege to deny investigations of criminal action. They can use the word game to neuter your ability to own and use guns.

Let’ say they use the environment spin. Lead is toxic and they could rule that you can’t shoot lead anymore because it harms the environment. Does that sound reasonable? The new environmentally friendly bullets they come up with now cost 20 bucks a round maybe even 50. You can still own a gun but can’t afford to shoot it.

How about something that’s already happened… In New York City they said “We are gonna register and license every gun, that’s just to keep track of them, ya know in such a large city we need to know who has them so criminals don’t get a hold of them”. Sounds “Reasonable” right?

Then they simply stopped issuing certain licenses… not the gun. You are allowed to own the gun… with the license, but they no longer offer the license. They did not ban the gun out right, just sopped issuing the license.

That won’t happen you say? Why not? It’s with in their power to do so. Just like the illegal spying on citizens and many other things that would never do, that they ARE doing.

When ever you license something you are given permission to do something that is normally against the law. The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT not a privilege.

My point is not to be so overjoyed over the decision. The fight is not over and is just a “Reasonable” regulation away from ending your 2nd amendment right.

~Brogan

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:23:08 +0000

Will, you blithering idiot. Try reading the second amendment all the way through before you make a stupid comment like that in the future. Just because you are not bright enough to figure out the meaning, just like the four supreme court liberals, does not make the ruling wrong.

Using your logic I would assume the first amendment should not apply to individual either. Doesn’t that seem equally asinine?

By: Will

Will — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:56:48 +0000

I was very disappointed in the ruling. I do not see how the second amendment is giving individual rights to gun ownership. Certainly, I don’t see gun ownership as any kind of human right as I have read in places. Guns are dangerous weapons. We should have control over access to them.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:45:41 +0000

I am a happy camper that the precedent has been laid and that the future is brighter.

By: Norm from AK

Norm from AK — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:04:03 +0000

This opinion is dead on. Scalia wrote an academic tour-de-force of the 2nd Amendment. The essential point here is to finally determine that the 2nd Amendment confirms and individual right, and that gun bans are not permissible.

Scalia coupled his opinion with a careful analysis of the history of the 2nd Amendment, and (I think) most importantly, debunks the anti-freedom arguments proposed in the Stevens and Breyer dissent. Everyone has been ignoring Scalia’s skewering of Stevens, but what he has done with his careful and forceful refutation of the Stevens dissent is to close innumerable potential avenues of appeal , thus denying the antis many possible arguments to overturn the Heller opinion in the future.

This is truly the camel’s nose under the tent. Once you admit to an individual right to gun ownership and self-defense, the whole gun-control house of cards starts its slow fall.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:39:15 +0000

I think it was a pretty good decision. I don’t care for the “reasonable” regulation part, but can live with it. I’m not totally against reasonable regulation, just don’t like the fact that we the citizens very seldom are the ones deciding what “reasonable” is.

I see the results of this decision as acting as a general catalyst to re-energize the pro-gun movement. We’ve won a round, so lets keep the momentum going.