Best Source for DC vs. Heller Updates and links

[WayneWong]

I believe the supreme court will find that the 2nd A is an individual right, subject to some restrictions. Just how broad the ruling will be is an open question.

However, even if there is a broad ruling from the supreme court, I think there is zero chance that MA gun laws will go down without a long, hard, multi-year, multi-million dollar fight.

I expect that there will be suits from states with similar laws such as California, New York, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey... with the accompanying media attention. I suspects once these laws start to crumble there will be a domino effect. This is a wait and see kind of deal, the ease or difficulty will be based on what the court has to say.

 

[matt1956]

ultimately states like MA, CA, NJ and the like will technically be in violation of the US Constitution if it all go through the way hope.

But, those old fall if/when challenged and typically will be individually

 

[jcr]

I see any kind of registration scheme as unreasonable.

It won't be resolved in Heller, but I suspect that registration (and licencing) will be allowed as long as they don't cause "undue burden."

The problem for the grabbers is that if they don't cause an undue burden, they are not worth it for them to do.

Yes, registration leads to confiscation -- but if keeping of guns is protected, confiscation isn't going to happen. If registration fees must be low, they are not a the hurdle that the grabbers want. After that, registration is useless as policy. Bad guys won't register, so police would be foolish to think that lack of a registration has anything to do with being armed.

Personally (for those who are curious as to where I draw the line), I think most gun laws UNreasonable.

Possession of revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles (including semi-auto) should not require any government involvement.

Open carry of handguns -- no government involvement.

Concealled carry -- Licencing, not necessary, but I'd go along with NON-discretionary and a free/moderately priced course required (once).

Open Carry of long guns -- usually hard to distinguish "holstered" from threat, so unless hunting (licensed), they ought to be unload.

Cased Carry of long guns -- must be unload, but otherwise that's just transport and Okay (no silly concealed charges apply).

Machine Guns and Canon -- Something like the MA FID seems the most that would be reasonable.

Exploding devices (projectiles, rockets) -- not protected, state restrictions allowed. Ball ammo for canon, okay; exploding shells, nogo.

Fireworks of my Dad's youth -- possession of all allowed without gov't. Storage rules, and time/place usage restictions can apply.

 

[Killjoy]

Personally (for those who are curious as to where I draw the line), I think most gun laws UNreasonable.

Possession of revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles (including semi-auto) should not require any government involvement.

Open carry of handguns -- no government involvement.

Concealled carry -- Licencing, not necessary, but I'd go along with NON-discretionary and a free/moderately priced course required (once).

Open Carry of long guns -- usually hard to distinguish "holstered" from threat, so unless hunting (licensed), they ought to be unload.

Cased Carry of long guns -- must be unload, but otherwise that's just transport and Okay (no silly concealed charges apply).

Machine Guns and Canon -- Something like the MA FID seems the most that would be reasonable.

Exploding devices (projectiles, rockets) -- not protected, state restrictions allowed. Ball ammo for canon, okay; exploding shells, nogo.

Fireworks of my Dad's youth -- possession of all allowed without gov't. Storage rules, and time/place usage restictions can apply.

+1....very well said.

 

[goodoldxelos]

It won't be resolved in Heller, but I suspect that registration (and licencing) will be allowed as long as they don't cause "undue burden."

The problem for the grabbers is that if they don't cause an undue burden, they are not worth it for them to do.

Yes, registration leads to confiscation -- but if keeping of guns is protected, confiscation isn't going to happen. If registration fees must be low, they are not a the hurdle that the grabbers want. After that, registration is useless as policy. Bad guys won't register, so police would be foolish to think that lack of a registration has anything to do with being armed.

Personally (for those who are curious as to where I draw the line), I think most gun laws UNreasonable.

Possession of revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles (including semi-auto) should not require any government involvement.

Open carry of handguns -- no government involvement.

Concealled carry -- Licencing, not necessary, but I'd go along with NON-discretionary and a free/moderately priced course required (once).

Open Carry of long guns -- usually hard to distinguish "holstered" from threat, so unless hunting (licensed), they ought to be unload.

Cased Carry of long guns -- must be unload, but otherwise that's just transport and Okay (no silly concealed charges apply).

Machine Guns and Canon -- Something like the MA FID seems the most that would be reasonable.

Exploding devices (projectiles, rockets) -- not protected, state restrictions allowed. Ball ammo for canon, okay; exploding shells, nogo.

Fireworks of my Dad's youth -- possession of all allowed without gov't. Storage rules, and time/place usage restictions can apply.

I think registration is only useful to tell who is lawful owning a gun and who is illegally owning a gun...

Personally (for those who are curious as to where I draw the line), I think xthe hands of criminals and mentally ill persons (cant think of any others right now).

As for mentally ill persons i think those with a history of mental illness, not for someone who went once or twice because they fell on hard times.

I think concealed carry should be the norm, for some reason people freak out at the sign of guns, especially in MA until they have fired one, then they tend to feel more comfortable.

I don't know why open carry is necessary for non law enforcement maybe someone could fill me in on this unless you carry a huge gun, and I'd say this isn't the Western 19th century. Id don't care about open carry in a sparsely populated areas (ranch/farm/probably some others) .

For machine guns/cannons i agree and ID card, id really like to own an old german 88mm cannon...

Exploding devices.. id like to have a panzershrek but ill forgo it for the "public good"


As for DC Heller case if it has not been mentioned and you would like to hear the oral arguments go to..
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

 

[fubar]

QUoted : I think registration is only useful to tell who is lawful owning a gun and who is illegally owning a gun...

Not worth the effort. In fact , so very NOT worth the effort there can only be ulterior motives or worse for those promoting registration. A sales receipt should be more than enough , and not required by law to keep.

I think you are confusing or mis-thinking the issue. Do you want state mandated car stereo registration ? Television & video game platform registration ? registration of any thing that could be a target for burglers ? ... at the poinbt of the .gov gun ? Unregistered DVD player - go to jail.

I think maybe you ought to try something like :

" I think proving possession of a murder weapon is only useful if someone is the active suspect in a Police investigation . Otherwise , get the hell out of my cabinets , holster and wallet. "

 

[Nickle]

I think registration is only useful to tell who is lawful owning a gun and who is illegally owning a gun...

Registration is only useful to know where to go to confiscate legally owned firearms.

That is it's SOLE purpose. To know what is where, and legally owned.

Anything not legally owned won't be registered, now will it?

 

[goingback5]

If this doesnt teach the united states government that gun control doesnt work, I dont know what will.This area has one of the highest murder by gun rates per capita in the united states. Banning handguns HAS NOT WORK! So the residents of this nations capital have no why to defend themselves in a crime ridden city,that is purely Unamerican. Although i wouldnt expect more from the home of a government that has become run by private interest groups and banks. Sorry for the rant my two cents.

 

[matt1956]

I think registration is only useful to tell who is lawful owning a gun and who is illegally owning a gun...

If I am the holder of an LTC-A, then all my guns ARE legal and therefore, no need to register.

If i have no firearms license... then i aint registering them anyway.

Registration only serves the purpose of allowing for confiscation at a later date.

 

[WayneWong]

Please consider this ON TOPIC.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-37.htm



PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 37. Violations of constitutional rights; punishment

Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

 

[matt1956]

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-37.htm



PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 37. Violations of constitutional rights; punishment

Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

Ok... had to read it twice to see what you were getting at, but i think that this

No person, whether or not acting under color of law... may intimidate or interfere with... or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States

now i did a little cut and paste there... only to remove what was irrelivent.

but that basically says that the state can't oppress, intimidate or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of ANY rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution of the commonwealth OR the US.

so that basically means that those that have written, put into law and enforce 90% of the gun laws in MA, are commiting a crime. if i read that right.

 

[pdm]

Except that the SJC has already said that we don't have an individual right to keep and bear arms. And the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution hasn't been incorporated against the states. So we're still buggered.

 

[matt1956]

They actually side stepped it in the past (to the best of my understanding.)

Just like many other cases, they tend to stick to that very case... this one however, they will not have that chance (at least i hope they dont find away to side step it again).

This case forces them to make the actual decision on if it is an individual right and if a state/district can ban certain types of firearms.

from all that I have read... it is not looking good for the gun grabbers.

 

[RKG]

Ok... had to read it twice to see what you were getting at, but i think that this

No person, whether or not acting under color of law... may intimidate or interfere with... or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States

now i did a little cut and paste there... only to remove what was irrelivent.

but that basically says that the state can't oppress, intimidate or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of ANY rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution of the commonwealth OR the US.

so that basically means that those that have written, put into law and enforce 90% of the gun laws in MA, are commiting a crime. if i read that right.

You elided the words "by force or threat of force," which limit the application of this statute.

 

[matt1956]

You elided the words "by force or threat of force," which limit the application of this statute.

not really, because it also says

intimidate or interfere with... or oppress

which is exactly what this state does.

 

[WayneWong]

Yeah, I am thinking that if the SCOTUS states we have an individual right and that the 2nd amendment applies to DC, then surely the same applies to Mass. Any effort to interfere with such a constitutional right, by threat of arrest, charge, fine, whatever would be grounds for a criminal charge against the oppressor under this section.

 

[Gabe]

Except that the SJC has already said that we don't have an individual right to keep and bear arms. And the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution hasn't been incorporated against the states. So we're still buggered.

I am curious what you mean. What does, "...incorporated against the states..." mean? The original states, of which MA was one, ratified the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was amended to it, meaning that the 2A binds MA - theoretically anyway.

 

[WayneWong]

I am curious what you mean. What does, "...incorporated against the states..." mean? The original states, of which MA was one, ratified the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was amended to it, meaning that the 2A binds MA - theoretically anyway.

Has there been a need to incorporate it against the states up to now? If it is deemed an individual right, that would be an excellent reason to incorporate it since an individual's right to keep and bear arms is necessary at least for the security of a free state.

Additionally, by overturning the DC gun law, are they not in fact incorporating it against a "state." They are not overturning a federal law.

 

[pdm]

The US Constitution, until the 14th Amendment was passed, operated solely on the federal government.

 

[matt1956]

States CANNOT pass laws or have amendments in their state constitutions that directly violate or "over rule" the Constitution of the United States. regardless of what the state says about when a law/amendment was made. The US Constitution ALWAYS beats the state.

See the Civil War for any questions.

You cannot make legal in the state what is illegal federally and you cannot make laws that restrict/remove rights granted under the Constitution. see "slavery" for more info.

So MA can say what they want, but the bottom line is, that when the DC case is ruled PROPERLY on the second, most of the MA gun laws are subject to repeal... now this still takes the ack of someone (GOAL or NRA) to bring these matters first to the state courts, then the federal courts because the asswipes in the state courts think that they are smarter and that the fed courts are wrong. then when it goes to the fed courts, we will see some changes.

 

[RKG]

not really, because it also says which is exactly what this state does.

They are not disjunctive: that statute says that whoever intimidates by force . . . . Non-force coercion (e.g., financial) may ground an action under some other statutes, but not this one.

 

[RKG]

You have to understand that, if someone says "X has a right", you have to always ask "against whom?"

For instance, you're in a room with two folks, Tom and Harry. The Boss, before leaving, told Harry, "Don't hit this new guy." You have a right not to be hit against Harry, but if Tom should hit you, he hasn't violated the Boss's edict.

The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution limit only the power of the federal government. By themselves, they do not create rights that can be enforced against state or local governments.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in the post-Civil War period, creates federal rights against the assertion of state or local government power. What it means, however, is and has always been unclear; and whether it includes any, some or all of the same rights vs. the federal government that are in the first ten amendments, is the process of "incorporation" that PDM refers to. He is correct: unless and until the Supreme Court rules that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms against state or local governments, the Second does nothing for you vis-a-vis Massachusetts.

 

[Gabe]

You have to understand that, if someone says "X has a right", you have to always ask "against whom?"

For instance, you're in a room with two folks, Tom and Harry. The Boss, before leaving, told Harry, "Don't hit this new guy." You have a right not to be hit against Harry, but if Tom should hit you, he hasn't violated the Boss's edict.

The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution limit only the power of the federal government. By themselves, they do not create rights that can be enforced against state or local governments.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in the post-Civil War period, creates federal rights against the assertion of state or local government power. What it means, however, is and has always been unclear; and whether it includes any, some or all of the same rights vs. the federal government that are in the first ten amendments, is the process of "incorporation" that PDM refers to. He is correct: unless and until the Supreme Court rules that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms against state or local governments, the Second does nothing for you vis-a-vis Massachusetts.

Thanks for the enlightening - if saddening - explanation. I have always believed that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, has always limited all forms of American government. But as you say, it evidently only limited the central government created by its ratification, excepting that it forbid state and local governments from engaging in a short list of activities for which the Federal Government was specially designed to do - waging war, entering into foreign treaties, coining currency.

Damn.

 

[WayneWong]

I would ask, then, that if the SCOTUS decides that DC violated Heller's 2nd amendment right, and affirms the Superior Court decision that Heller has an individual right, isn't that in fact incorporating the 2nd against the states?

A local law is being struck down, not a federal.

 

[strangenh]

I would ask, then, that if the SCOTUS decides that DC violated Heller's 2nd amendment right, and affirms the Superior Court decision that Heller has an individual right, isn't that in fact incorporating the 2nd against the states?

A local law is being struck down, not a federal.

DC is federal. It is locally administered, but it is a federal district. It's not a state, and the briefs filed on DC's behalf even tried to throw a curveball that the militia clause meant that only people living in states - not in federal districts under federal authority - would be protected by the 2nd A. Thus, a limitation on the fed's power applies to the DC government irrespective of incorporation via the 14th's reference to "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The incorporation of the 2nd by the 14th remains an unresolved question, though the general drift of the few cases out there seems to indicate an assumption that it is incorporated. The Court will need to address that issue up front in any future case examining a firearms law issuing under authority of any state. Before anyone asks, "under the authority of any state" does include counties, municipalities, etc. under that state's authority.

 

[WayneWong]

DC is federal. It is locally administered, but it is a federal district. It's not a state, and the briefs filed on DC's behalf even tried to throw a curveball that the militia clause meant that only people living in states - not in federal districts under federal authority - would be protected by the 2nd A. Thus, a limitation on the fed's power applies to the DC government irrespective of incorporation via the 14th's reference to "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The incorporation of the 2nd by the 14th remains an unresolved question, though the general drift of the few cases out there seems to indicate an assumption that it is incorporated. The Court will need to address that issue up front in any future case examining a firearms law issuing under authority of any state. Before anyone asks, "under the authority of any state" does include counties, municipalities, etc. under that state's authority.

Edit - I see your point. This is a question that will have to be addressed in a federal court at some later time.

 

[PEMS2324]

D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html

 

[peterpressure]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html

Holy old article bat man!!

 

[PEMS2324]

Holy old article bat man!!

Ya think?

It's just a link to some old reading. Prep'ing you all for WHAT"S ABOUT TO COME;

 

[Trout]

Is there a set date for the SCOTUS decision? June?