Heller - 90 days after

[uzi]

Has there been any changes in Massachusetts issuing policy, or any other new England States due to the Heller decision ?

Has any New England state re-wrote their laws about firearms ?

Or has there been no affects ?

I thought States had 90 days to comply and adapt to the new ruling(?)

 

[drgrant]

You can forget about any of that happening until the issue of incorporation
is resolved.

Even then, don't expect any sweeping changes. Heller still, on paper, allows for a lot of abuse by governments issuing permits, among other things.

IIRC some fiefdoms in IL dumped their handgun bans (Oak Grove?) but most of the anti-gun crapholes in the US aren't really running scared yet- they won't do anything to comply with Heller unless someone forces them to.


-Mike

 

[FunYun]

Heller only applies to DC at the moment.

It also made very few cut and dry decisions, as the scope of the case was limited.

What Heller was is a step in the right direction, especially with the individual right ruling. Now it needs to be expanded upon and applied to the other states. Which I would say will take as long as 2-4yrs after incorporation(application to all states).

 

[Scrivener]

Has there been any changes in Massachusetts issuing policy, or any other new England States due to the Heller decision ?

Has any New England state re-wrote their laws about firearms ?

Or has there been no affects ?

I thought States had 90 days to comply and adapt to the new ruling(?)

Are you asking a question or stating your impression?

At any rate, you are misinformed. The major criticism of Heller, other than that only a bare majority were willing to acknowledge the obvious, was that it affected ONLY the District of Columbia. Unless and until that decision is incorporated through the 14th Amendment, it is not directly applicable to the states.

Places like Morton Grove simply saw the writing on the wall and had the intelligence not to squander public money defending an insupportable prohibition.

 

[EddieCoyle]

What does the incorporation process involve?

 

[Scrivener]

What does the incorporation process involve?

A Supreme Court decision stating that its ruling is held applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment.

Don't hold your breath.

Or vote for Obama.

 

[M1911]

Has there been any changes in Massachusetts issuing policy, or any other new England States due to the Heller decision ?

None that I'm aware of

Has any New England state re-wrote their laws about firearms ?

No.

Or has there been no affects ?

No effect that I'm aware.

I thought States had 90 days to comply and adapt to the new ruling(?)

You might want to do some research on the constitutional term "incorporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

There has been no ruling that incorporates the 2nd.

 

[goofycj7]

None that I'm aware of No. No effect that I'm aware. You might want to do some research on the constitutional term "incorporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) Here is what Wiki has to say: There has been no ruling that incorporates the 2nd.

[edit] Amendment II Right to keep and bear arms This provision has not been held to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, the court has ruled that the second amendment codifies a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry firearms, which is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.[13] See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008). Because Cruickshank, Presser, and Miller predated the Supreme Court's modern incorporation cases, it now appears to be an open question as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The issue is currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King.[14]
This reminds me why I became a Engineer instead of a Physicist or a Lawyer.

"this is what will realistically happen" vs "In Theory this is what will happen" vs "make it very lengthy, open to tranlation, in weasel words and argue one way or anouther depending on who pays via return mail"


Nothing against my Brother inlaw, the lawyer in the family.

 

[center442]

Heller Decision Incorporation Case....

I was going to start a new thread for this, but it probably fits better in here. Mods, if you you think it should be moved, my thanks for doing so.

I received the following information in an email today from the Second Amendment Foundation.

NEWS RELEASE
SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN NORDYKE CASE SEEKING 2nd AMENDMENT INCORPORATION
BELLEVUE, WA – Arguing that the Supreme Court opened the door toward incorporation of the Second Amendment in its landmark ruling in the Heller case, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief in the long-running case of Nordyke v. King, a challenge to the gun show ban in California’s Alameda County.

Russell Allen Nordyke had been fighting the Alameda County gun show ban on First Amendment grounds, but a ruling in the case by a district court judge opened up a Second Amendment issue. This is a critical issue for all Americans in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

Filing the brief on SAF’s behalf before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case before the high court earlier this year. Noting that “The right to bear arms clearly meets the modern incorporation standard,” Gura’s 33-page brief offers a historical Second Amendment perspective, and dismantles, step-by-step, arguments that the amendment does not apply to the states or local governments.

“It is unfathomable,” Gura writes, “that the states are constitutionally limited in their regulation of medical decisions or intimate relationsÂ…but are unrestrained in their ability to trample upon the enumerated right to arms designed to enable self-preservation.”

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the brief “covers every argument supporting incorporation in remarkably concise language that is well-supported by court precedent, historical documentation and just plain common sense.”

“The Heller ruling defined the Second Amendment as the founders intended,” Gottlieb stated, “and an affirmative ruling in the Nordyke case will help assure that this right properly limits state and local governments from regulating this important civil right into oblivion.”

-END-

 

[Coyote33]

You can forget about any of that happening until the issue of incorporation is resolved. ...

I guess your luck is starting to come around:


SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case Seeking 2nd Amendment Incorporation


edit: Ah, I see Center beat me to it.

 

[strangenh]

I guess your luck is starting to come around:


SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case Seeking 2nd Amendment Incorporation


edit: Ah, I see Center beat me to it.

Briefs are linked from http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000959.html

The push - even from the left - appears to be in support of an incorporation interpretation. Once the Second was held to be a right akin to those listed in the First, I think a lot of the left legal academy saw that pushing for something other than incorporation could undermine other individual rights.

 

[center442]

Briefs are linked from http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000959.html

The push - even from the left - appears to be in support of an incorporation interpretation. Once the Second was held to be a right akin to those listed in the First, I think a lot of the left legal academy saw that pushing for something other than incorporation could undermine other individual rights.

Agreed. If any constitutional right can be denied or abridged because of not being incorporated, then they are all in danger.

I hope this proceeds to a happy conclusion.

 

[Coyote33]

This incorporation post should really be put in its own post.