-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Best Source for DC vs. Heller Updates and links
- Thread starter Bruce for NH State Rep
- Start date
- Status
It would be great to see, however I am very doubtful I will see this happen in my lifetime.
I predict the changes (if any) after this ruling will be minimal at best.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
mass storage requirements - unconstitutional (my optimism)
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,551
- Likes
- 33,613
Miranda was about evidence that could be used against an individual and it's admissability in court. Being able to assert that evidence used to convict one of an act which is, in fact, a crime should not have been admitted and then further showing that the admission could reasonably change the outcome of a case is certainly an "appeal issue", and is quite a different matter from "SCOTUS determined that the offense for which you were convicted is not a crimt".
What I am referring to is a situation when an individual is convicted of an act which SCOTUS subsequently determines was not a crime. If someone is in prison for an act which SCOTUS determined was, in fact, never a crime what is the legal procedure?
Any lawyers on this forum able to enlighten?
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,284
- Likes
- 353
Being the eternal pessimist, I believe that SCOTUS WILL rule that it is an individual right but that the States will still have their say. Therefore, nothing will change for us. I also believe that newly enacted laws or rulings ARE NOT retroactive, they are only forward-going. For example, the year after my divorce was final, the provision that divorced parents were responsible for the cost of their children's college education was shot down by the NH Supreme Court as "unconstitutional." A few dads attempted to have the provision struck from their decrees but were summarily told "sorry, not retroactive."
Just my 2 cents.
Ed
Just my 2 cents.
Ed
I believe that if SCOTUS rules that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right - the Mass AG is in a bit of a pickle. From what I can discern other than the AG imposing it's handgun regulations on the MA firearm buying public - the imposition of MA laws and AG regulations appears to be spotty at best. We have dealers here in MA who claim it is ok to sell high cap mags, we have cops who don't know what the law (and many of those who do who think it is stupid - if posts on LEO forums I have read is any indication) - and we have Margaret Coakley - who I have been told has made comments along the lines of "the regulations need to be reviewed".
It looks to me like the AG has put themselves into a bit of pickle - they have violated the 2nd amendment and interstate commerce rules. Therefore they have opened themselves up for a lawsuit. If they impose the rules too harshly - they increase the chances of a lawsuit. If the rescind the rules - they admit they were wrong - and invite a lawsuit. Screwed either way. The likelihood that there would actually be a lawsuit here in MA is probably pretty slim - BUT, that is all a matter of chance. Five years ago - would we have thought there would be a lawsuit against DC that led the Heller case?
All it might take is a good ruling for our side on the Heller case - and somebody with deep pockets deciding to take on MA as an example to the other states who have screwed with the 2nd. This is all a matter of time, circumstance, money - and politics.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,551
- Likes
- 33,613
Laws are generally not retroactive, but I'm referring to something else. Your description would apply if someone were convicted of unlicensed carry in a state that subsequently passed a law establishing VT style carry. When SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional, it is not "making a new law", but ruling that the existing law has always been invalid. This may be an significant difference.
Lets use a historical example... i.e. the prohibition. There were a lot of rum runners that went to prison, but I don't think many of them were set free after booze was made legal again.
But the argument is beside the point of the debate. Will the NRA and/or GOAL use this precident to bring the laws of Ma. in line with constitutional law?
But the argument is beside the point of the debate. Will the NRA and/or GOAL use this precident to bring the laws of Ma. in line with constitutional law?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,551
- Likes
- 33,613
This is not an example of the concept, because the law was changed - SCOTUS did not decide that prohibition was unconstitutional, and that the prohibition laws had no validity.
Overturning a law as "invalid" is not the same as changing the law through the legislative process.
People are so used to judges legislating from the bench, that the distinction between these two circumstances is often not made.
I hope so. I would think so. Just the title "The Gun Control ACT of 1998" smacks of infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms. I understand that the ruling will have no immediate effect on Massachusetts, however I believe the right subsequent cases will bring those laws tumbling down in the federal courts.
If the legislature was smart - and they are not - they would immediately rework the law to be pallatable to both sides before the federal courts tell them the whole farking thing is unconstitutional.
You want to see someone on our side take on MA? then WE should pour that money into GOAL, whether it be from memberships or other forms of fund raising.
strangenh
NES Member
If we're talking about overturning long-standing convictions, then we're probably not talking about appeal. We're talking about collateral review. Habeas petitions after all appeals are in and done. Ones where the convicts haven't exhausted their appeals are a different matter.
Which exactly do you mean? The retrospective collateral application of a substantive constitutional criminal law decision is a highly technical area on which con law professors currently have broad-ranging disagreements.
If you're talking about whether the decision will affect cases where the convict has not exhausted all appeal angles, then I agree, they'll have a good shot at a nice new appeal or other direct review.
But remember this case can only directly invalidate the specific federal (DC) laws under challenge. How many convicts on the DC law with the case still open are there? The decision may state new grounds to invalidate other laws - and thus federal cases that are not yet res judicata may make use of the new "rules" on appeal. The confusing issue of retrospective collateral effect of a substantive change in constitutional law (which would take pages to get into, especially since not everyone agrees) doesn't even come up until some other case changes the rule under which an established conviction without remaining appeal happened - i.e., successfully challenges that particular statute. It'll be a decade of direct challenges to statutes, not a sudden flood of habeas actions.
If you want to read up on the mess that is retrospective collateral effect, start with Teague v. Lane, dig around for criminal cases since 1989, continue past where you think you understand... and when your head explodes, you've got it!
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Also, if the decision is really going to have significant, immediate impact (which it almost certainly won't until later cases on other federal laws and until a decision touching on the 14th A. question is made), one could even expect the Court to flat out state the retrospective impact, which they can do and have done before.
No matter how the SCOTUS rules, it will still take someone (pay your GOAL dues) to bring MA to court on the MA laws before we see major changes.
They may try to do a "few" to keep us "gun nuts" happy, throw us a bone sort of speak. but i doubt it. they are too arrogant to do that.
Now, if they do in fact say that the second is a RIGHT, or liberty if you will, of ALL PEOPLE, then these prior rulings would apply;
No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.
The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]
Again, someone would have to challenge it, but this should be a no brainer.
but then again... those that run this state have no brains anyway.
We still have a fight against us boys and girls, but I can hear that trumpet blowing and it is telling us to "CHARGE!"
They may try to do a "few" to keep us "gun nuts" happy, throw us a bone sort of speak. but i doubt it. they are too arrogant to do that.
Now, if they do in fact say that the second is a RIGHT, or liberty if you will, of ALL PEOPLE, then these prior rulings would apply;
No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.
The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]
Again, someone would have to challenge it, but this should be a no brainer.
but then again... those that run this state have no brains anyway.
We still have a fight against us boys and girls, but I can hear that trumpet blowing and it is telling us to "CHARGE!"
Nothing on Heller today.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Remember......Often times, no news is good news.
I think that Village Idiot and matt1956 are accurate in their assessments. While I believe that the Heller decision will be favorable for gun owners or potential gun owners residing in the District of Columbia, I also feel that the decision will not be as far reaching as some would wish or hope for. I think we need to be prepared for some disappointment. It more than likely be business as usual here in the Commonwealth.
Mark L.
Mark L.
Another interesting part to this case is Montana. From wikipedia.....
"Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution asserting that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur."
IIRC this meant they could break off from the states or something to that effect. Now that would be quite the event.
"Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution asserting that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur."
IIRC this meant they could break off from the states or something to that effect. Now that would be quite the event.
Yup, that was brought up months ago on here and a number of other sites. I believe if the 'individual-right' was taken away by the federal and not given to the states to decide, Montana, and a number of other states would work to become independent states.
Next opinions will be issued Thursday 6/19![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
I truly believe that the Heller decision will be the last opinion rendered on the 23rd of June. This is by far the most anticipated decision in many years, so i am almost certain that they will save it for last.
Sixteen opinions remain. . . .
Last edited:
That makes two states. I had read something along these lines a while back and for the life of me could not remember where I read it or find it on the net.
Then I recently started re-reading my copy of Boston's Gun Bible. And he mentions it near the back of the book. The other state was Arizona - there was a bill introduced by Johnson Cooley - bill HRC 2034, here is an article about it on Vermont Commons:
http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2008/...legislators-introduce-secession-bill-hcr-2034
That makes two states with officially passed legislation - and another one (Vermont) with pretty active secession movement and likely to secede (in my opinion) if the Feds start seriously screwing with the Constitution.
There was also a bill in Vermont that would have REQUIRED the ownership of firearms:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/2000/010200.html
from http://www.alamo-girl.com/0355.htm :
Oh yeah - the Lakota Nation has already seceded from the US ( I don't know how serious this is though) :
http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/lakota-indian-activists-secede-from-the-us/
http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/lakota-indian-activists-secede-from-the-us/
Mark, they are waiting...hoping...that we will dismiss this decision. We need to give them everything we got once it comes out. If they have to fend off every legal and political attack we can muster, we have to make them use up every bit of energy and motivation we can.
Wouldn't it be nice if gas were .25/gal. and .223 was $150/1,000?
Still, it's fun to dream.
I think the (faint) chance of those specious regulations being nullified lies with the (invertebrate and Democrat) legislature.
Even with an affirmation from the SCOTUS that the 2nd amendemnt is an individual right...
They apply a strict standard of review...
The Chicago handgun ban is successfully challenged (all the way to the SCOTUS), and incorporated into the 14th amendment...
There's only a "faint" chance that those regs will be nullified?
If things go our way... I think we can do a lot better than that.
And if they don't... I'd rather put my faith in the "faint" chance than no chance.
The next few days, followed by the next 3-5-10 years is the only opportunity we have...lets not squander it.
- Status
