More on Heller
chicagotribune.com
Lawyer in D.C. Gun Case Doesn't Own One
By STEPHEN MANNING
Associated Press Writer
5:14 AM CDT, March 17, 2008
WASHINGTON
Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.
But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.
Why all the effort? Levy says he is driven to defend constitutional rights he believes are being trampled by the District of Columbia's strict ban on private ownership of handguns.
"I believe in the written Constitution and that the text ought to be interpreted the way it was meant to be," Levy said.
Levy, 66, didn't exactly try to keep his role secret as he and a small group of other lawyers crafted the case and shepherded it through the federal courts. He writes frequently about gun rights, stating a few years ago that Americans "deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the meaning of the Second Amendment." The high court hasn't directly ruled on gun rights in roughly 70 years.
And Levy freely admits the case is manufactured, not one that bubbled up by chance from the district's steady flow of criminal cases involving guns. He wanted presentable plaintiffs to make a case for gun rights, not criminals.
"We didn't want crack heads and bank robbers to be poster boys for the Second Amendment," he said.
A former businessman who made millions in money management before going to law school at age 50, Levy is an attorney with the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, though he says the handgun case is independent of his work there. He grew up in Washington and later lived in Maryland, but has since moved to Naples, Fla.
Washington's law was passed in 1976 in response to a spike in gun violence. But the city's murder rate was persistently high during much of the ban's existence, peaking at 479 in 1991 at the height of the crack epidemic. The rate has since plummeted but remains one of the highest in the nation.
Gun rights groups have long fought against the law, and Congress has tried several times to undercut it. But the case that made it to the high court has a more libertarian bent.
In fact, the National Rifle Association tried to block the case, fearing that the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer, if the court ruled on the case, Levy said. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.
City officials say the law is based on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of states to organize militias, not the right of individuals to own guns. Most courts and legal scholars long agreed with that view.
But a few years ago, several developments convinced Levy he could successfully challenge the law.
First, liberal legal scholars like Harvard's Laurence Tribe began to argue that the Second Amendment did protect individual rights. In 2001, a federal appellate court made the same conclusion, but still upheld the Texas law on transportation of firearms. Levy was also encouraged when the Justice Department under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft supported individual rights in the same case.
Along with two other lawyers, including Alan Gura, who will argue the case in front of the Supreme Court, Levy tried to find plaintiffs. Through word of mouth, the group of lawyers sought out a diverse group. One was a gay man, another a black woman who felt threatened by drug dealers, another a white security guard.
Only one plaintiff remains: Dick Heller, a security guard who applied for a handgun license and was rejected under the district's handgun ban. The lower federal courts, while striking down the law, concluded only Heller was harmed by the city's law.
Levy won't say how much he is spending on the case, only that it is expensive.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press.
Lawyer in D.C. Gun Case Doesn't Own One
By STEPHEN MANNING
Associated Press Writer
5:14 AM CDT, March 17, 2008
WASHINGTON
Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.
But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.
Why all the effort? Levy says he is driven to defend constitutional rights he believes are being trampled by the District of Columbia's strict ban on private ownership of handguns.
"I believe in the written Constitution and that the text ought to be interpreted the way it was meant to be," Levy said.
Levy, 66, didn't exactly try to keep his role secret as he and a small group of other lawyers crafted the case and shepherded it through the federal courts. He writes frequently about gun rights, stating a few years ago that Americans "deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the meaning of the Second Amendment." The high court hasn't directly ruled on gun rights in roughly 70 years.
And Levy freely admits the case is manufactured, not one that bubbled up by chance from the district's steady flow of criminal cases involving guns. He wanted presentable plaintiffs to make a case for gun rights, not criminals.
"We didn't want crack heads and bank robbers to be poster boys for the Second Amendment," he said.
A former businessman who made millions in money management before going to law school at age 50, Levy is an attorney with the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, though he says the handgun case is independent of his work there. He grew up in Washington and later lived in Maryland, but has since moved to Naples, Fla.
Washington's law was passed in 1976 in response to a spike in gun violence. But the city's murder rate was persistently high during much of the ban's existence, peaking at 479 in 1991 at the height of the crack epidemic. The rate has since plummeted but remains one of the highest in the nation.
Gun rights groups have long fought against the law, and Congress has tried several times to undercut it. But the case that made it to the high court has a more libertarian bent.
In fact, the National Rifle Association tried to block the case, fearing that the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer, if the court ruled on the case, Levy said. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.
City officials say the law is based on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of states to organize militias, not the right of individuals to own guns. Most courts and legal scholars long agreed with that view.
But a few years ago, several developments convinced Levy he could successfully challenge the law.
First, liberal legal scholars like Harvard's Laurence Tribe began to argue that the Second Amendment did protect individual rights. In 2001, a federal appellate court made the same conclusion, but still upheld the Texas law on transportation of firearms. Levy was also encouraged when the Justice Department under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft supported individual rights in the same case.
Along with two other lawyers, including Alan Gura, who will argue the case in front of the Supreme Court, Levy tried to find plaintiffs. Through word of mouth, the group of lawyers sought out a diverse group. One was a gay man, another a black woman who felt threatened by drug dealers, another a white security guard.
Only one plaintiff remains: Dick Heller, a security guard who applied for a handgun license and was rejected under the district's handgun ban. The lower federal courts, while striking down the law, concluded only Heller was harmed by the city's law.
Levy won't say how much he is spending on the case, only that it is expensive.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press.
0
-
Old Ironsights we can just keep holding our breath that the SC upholds our 2A rights...but somehow I have butterflys in the gut that they will jump on the politically correct bandwagon of todays 1984. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Old Ironsights we can just keep holding our breath that the SC upholds our 2A rights...but somehow I have butterflys in the gut that they will jump on the politically correct bandwagon of todays 1984.
And frankly, I don't care.
Bring it on.
If these Unconstitutional gun laws we have today had been instituted in 1950 DC would have been reduced to rubble within days.
These people need to be adressed before we have completely lost the will - and ability - to defend the Constitution.
Incrementalisim is a Cancer. It MUST be stopped, either through relatively "painless" methods, or through radical surgery.
Either way, we will know soon. [}:)]0 -
I know what you mean OI but I truley hope it doesn't come down to this.
The gov has become all too powerfull for any group to overwhelm it. Call me what you wish and read into it what you want just look at Ruby Ridge and Waco as recent examples.
Lets just hope the SC does whats right to avoid controversey.
Or worse...[xx(]0 -
Hunter;
You, Sir, are a beaten man.
You are beaten before the first blow was struck. Your mindset is indicative of many years of brain-washing from the government, media, and NRA.
The government is NOT omnipotent ..invulnerable .
The government is made up of people.and those people ..some of them ..enough ..will help us, when the final crisis is pushed by that government.
Old Ironsights has it completely, totally RIGHT.if it must come, let it be in our time ..so our children may live in peace.
Win or lose ..we win this case. Assuming, of course, the Court doesn't find a way to mealy-mouth they way out of It ..as I expect.0 -
It is the most powerful governments that fall the hardest, Romans, Russians, Germans, and on and on and on... They only seem to fall when the people realize that they no longer exercise any control over them, greed takes over, politicians loose touch with reality and POOF no mo pork 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Hunter;
You, Sir, are a beaten man.
You are beaten before the first blow was struck. Your mindset is indicative of many years of brain-washing from the government, media, and NRA.
The government is NOT omnipotent ..invulnerable .
The government is made up of people.and those people ..some of them ..enough ..will help us, when the final crisis is pushed by that government.
Old Ironsights has it completely, totally RIGHT.if it must come, let it be in our time ..so our children may live in peace.
Win or lose ..we win this case. Assuming, of course, the Court doesn't find a way to mealy-mouth they way out of It ..as I expect.
Highball your opinion is like an piehole everybody has one, your bigotry is suicidal on it's best day and the sole cause of the martyrs in the middle east as well as here in the US. Yes your wish for armageddon is truly unbeliveable as you are in bed with the terrorists who seek the destruction of the earth. Yes your in denial for those who ingnore your fantacys, are against your beliefs for a police state. Yes sad but true you have lost every and all rational to what life is about.
You just can't wait to go down in a blaze of gunfire to justify your anti american agenda.
You truly are pathetic and a disgrace to this country and our forefathers.[xx(]
Highball it's too easy to tell when you've skipped your meds.0 -
"Better Red than Dead" HM? [xx(]
I stand by my position.
If the Fed tried to implement the gun laws we have today in 1950, Washington DC would be rubble.
The "Greatest Generation" would not have stood for it... not after the blood they shed in WWII.
It took the violence of the Commie-Hippies and the complacency/duplicity of the NRA to get the GCA passed in '68.
I don't want a "blaze of glory". Hell, the Founding Fathers didn't "want" a Revolution either.
But there are times and circumstances that leave a man of fortitude and commitment to the Ideals of Freedom insilled and documented by the Constitution no choice.
I swore an OATH "To protect and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States of America from ALL enimies, both foreign and domestic."
That hasn't changed. My oath stands - even if this "government" falls.[B)]0 -
quote:You truly are pathetic and a disgrace to this country and our forefathers.
There is no doubt at all that ONE of us is all the things you said here.
I leave it to posterity to decide which of us held views agreeing with the 'forefathers' .
The PROBLEM with your statement is..you didn't specify WHICH set of forefathers you refer to...as I am sure YOURS fled the country, to slink back in after 50 years..or were merely part of the 60 % that didn't support the Revolution.
The Founders, now..those men that won the War, wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights..they would spit on you.0 -
I hate to say this but you both kind of miss the point, you don't have to take a government "head on" especially a corrupt one, nor are they invincible. If they are rotten then they will fall of their own doing, and if they are not so rotten, then change I would think is possible. But simply surrendering to the "will" of government is not a very good option either, nor is burning it down and starting over. We need real tangible change, and to have both sides of whatever argument be able to reach some agreement. Old Iron said something about "mandatory training" that he didn't like, I agree with that mostly. You don't need training to keep guns in your own home, but if you are carrying loaded ones in public settings you ought to have something, if you are to be packin in public, its a decent thing that I would undertake on my own even if it wasn't mandatory just because it is a responsible act... I do not regret any weapons safety classes I have ever taken, granted they were redundant and boring, but good lessons that needs to be re-enforced every time you handle a gun.
Dont hurt me too bad I a gentle butterfly...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Hunter;
You, Sir, are a beaten man.
You are beaten before the first blow was struck. Your mindset is indicative of many years of brain-washing from the government, media, and NRA.
The government is NOT omnipotent ..invulnerable .
The government is made up of people.and those people ..some of them ..enough ..will help us, when the final crisis is pushed by that government.
Old Ironsights has it completely, totally RIGHT.if it must come, let it be in our time ..so our children may live in peace.
Win or lose ..we win this case. Assuming, of course, the Court doesn't find a way to mealy-mouth they way out of It ..as I expect.
Highball your opinion is like an piehole everybody has one, your bigotry is suicidal on it's best day and the sole cause of the martyrs in the middle east as well as here in the US. Yes your wish for armageddon is truly unbeliveable as you are in bed with the terrorists who seek the destruction of the earth. Yes your in denial for those who ingnore your fantacys, are against your beliefs for a police state. Yes sad but true you have lost every and all rational to what life is about.
You just can't wait to go down in a blaze of gunfire to justify your anti american agenda.
You truly are pathetic and a disgrace to this country and our forefathers.[xx(]
Highball it's too easy to tell when you've skipped your meds.
Wrong sir, and by a massive margin.0 -
quote:Originally posted by crash2usaf... Old Iron said something about "mandatory training" that he didn't like, I agree with that mostly. You don't need training to keep guns in your own home, but if you are carrying loaded ones in public settings you ought to have something, if you are to be packin in public, its a decent thing that I would undertake on my own even if it wasn't mandatory just because it is a responsible act...
Sigh.
I guess y'all are gonna force me to post it... so I'm gonna put it on another thread. Go look here: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2945120 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:You truly are pathetic and a disgrace to this country and our forefathers.
There is no doubt at all that ONE of us is all the things you said here.
I leave it to posterity to decide which of us held views agreeing with the 'forefathers' .
The PROBLEM with your statement is..you didn't specify WHICH set of forefathers you refer to...as I am sure YOURS fled the country, to slink back in after 50 years..or were merely part of the 60 % that didn't support the Revolution.
The Founders, now..those men that won the War, wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights..they would spit on you.
Yes I wouldn't expect anything less from a traitor like you.
And I'll bet you claim to be a constitutionalist.
You ought to be a shamed of yourself for "which set of forefathers" what a lame disgrace you are to the men that have fought and died for our freedom. It's no wonder the youth of today have no respect for our country. Evidently they listen to propaganda from your incompetent mindset. You are a true disgrace to the US of A.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
The gov has become all too powerfull for any group to overwhelm it.
Fear nothing that bleeds0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
You are a true disgrace to the US of A.
NO, Highball is a REAL asset to the US of A. You wouldn't know what the founders had to say if they smacked you in the face with an autobiography.
What, don't like the fact you act like a Tory? Get over it and change, or post on a different forum. We here have no use for "comprimise" or "for the good of the people" you proscribe to.0 -
This thread has degenerated into personal insults.
Too bad. [V]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments