Forgive me if this is not very detailed, but I didn't take notes so it is all from memory. Here we go, I apologize for the stream of consiousness babbling.
I just had the opportunity to go to a lunch presentation by Professor Fenner from Creighton Law School. In attendance were mostly lawyers and about a dozen judges. I would guess about 250 people were there.
Mostly he spoke about the effect that the Heller case would have.
Some points:
- 2nd amendment is an individual right.
- The Heller case said he could have a handgun in his house. It didn't involve any other types of guns nor any other places.
- Although the decision clarified that the 2a is an individual right, it isn't necessarily a clear cut victory for gun owners. In fact, there was now a necessity, nay, an opportunity to review these gun laws and...clear them up, implying that people should make them more strict.
- After the decision is passed, what next? Make money. He had 2 pictures of commemorative guns. 1 was a handgun (s&w?) with the scales of justice engraved on it. The scale was tipped in Heller's favor. Available for ~500 dollars. The other was a couple of larger rifles, looked almost like .50 bmg's to me. One was an "accurate fire" the other was a "rapid fire". They had gold engraving of Heller's signature & came with a certificate of authenticity. These were 20,000 dollars a piece. I believe the guns were limited edition. The rifles purported to donate $5000 of the sale to the Heller foundation for supporting gun laws.
- There were a few gasps in the crowd & murmors of disbelief (mostly from women that I could see) when the pictures were shown of the guns. Also when the professor mentioned in his closing annecdote that these tax board members owned x number of guns. You have to realize, though, that the professor was subtly slanting his speech toward the anti-gun side of the argument and that a lot lawyers in the room who demographically, I believe, generally lean politically left or democrat.
3 things that Heller's lawyer had going for him & what you should look for if you're a "lawyer with a cause".
1) Have the best claimant.
2) Fight the most restrictive law.
3) Ask for as little as possible.
1) Have the best claimant. Heller was a security guard for federal courthouses. He was trusted to carry & carried around judges all of the time for his job. Yet, he could not have a handgun in his own house for his own personal safety.
2) DC has arguably the most restrictive gun law in the country. Tied were chicago & san diego.
3) All he wanted was to allow Heller to have his work handgun in his house. He didn't touch on anything else--concealed carry, carrying in public, other types of weapons, etc. By asking small & specific, he was likely to get the judgement he wanted.
What is constitutional law? 5 votes.
4 supreme court judges dissented. They argued that the 2nd amendment applied only to state milita. 5 supreme court judges said it was an individual right. What is con law? The opinion of the majority, or 5 of nine votes. A narrow margin to be sure.
Fenner was obviously shaded toward the anti gun side. Not overtly, he presented facts. But he also soaked them a little with his opinion.
He closed with 2 anectdotes. 1 was speaking about a meeting of 4 of tax board members somewhere & they were asked the question: Do you own any guns. They all said yes. They all had multiple long guns & hand guns. A couple of them showed bravado in their answers, such as "Yes, and I'm a good shot." or "Yes, and I will take any of you on".
The second was "Will the Heller decision make us safer?" He said he didn't know for a fact, but had his opinion & gave this statistic. Nevada has the highest number of guns per capita. Nevada has the highest rate of injury by a gun.
That is mostly what I remember. If I think of anything else, I will report back. Feel free to comment, or jog my memory with any questions.
Jim
