right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states,

[hikerlt]

saw this article about Massachusetts ruling on 3/16:

Mass Supreme Court ruling kills 2nd Amendment

 

[ChargingCharlie]

Only until the McDonald case is ruled upon this summer. US Supreme Court trumps MA Supreme Court.

 

[matt1956]

US Supreme Court trumps MA Supreme Court.

Well someone needs to send the memo to the MA supreme court... because they think otherwise

 

[seanc]

I expect that even after McDonald nothing will change. With a bunch of states telling the feds that gun laws don't apply their state (if not involved in interstate commerce) then the Mass SJC will insist that they are following the Scotus ruling and that licensing, bans, storage requirements, etc. do not constitute an infringement on the 2A. and they are essentially in compliance already.

Basically the SJC daring the feds to actually DO something. I don't see the feds taking action.

 

[Jason]

Only until the McDonald case is ruled upon this summer. US Supreme Court trumps MA Supreme Court.

Only for the powers enumerated by the constitution to the federal government. As I under stand it the 2nd amendment applies to all levels of government where as the first amendment only applies to congress.

 

[gjones77]

Only for the powers enumerated by the constitution to the federal government. As I under stand it the 2nd amendment applies to all levels of government where as the first amendment only applies to congress.

No, the 1st has been completely incorporated against the states for the most part, so the 1st does apply to all levels down to the state.

Amendment I

Guarantee against establishment of religion

* This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[15]

Guarantee of free exercise of religion

* This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

Guarantee of freedom of speech

* This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).

Guarantee of freedom of the press

* This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

Guarantee of freedom of assembly

* This provision has been incorporated against the states. See DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

Right to petition for redress of grievances

* It appears that no one case incorporates this right individually. However, dicta in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) suggests that this right is incorporated along with all the other First Amendment guarantees.

Guarantee of freedom of expressive association

* This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in in the case NAACP v. Alabama, and was at that time applied to the states.

 

[Mike S]

Even IF SCOTUS finds in favor of McDonald it's going to take a s*%t ton of time in court/legislation to pull MA out of it's current quagmire.

 

[cekim]

Even IF SCOTUS finds in favor of McDonald it's going to take a s*%t ton of time in court/legislation to pull MA out of it's current quagmire.

I would assume Runyan would be salivating to take the SJC up in short order... But yes, it will require several steps and every aspect will be fought.

 

[gjones77]

Even IF SCOTUS finds in favor of McDonald it's going to take a s*%t ton of time in court/legislation to pull MA out of it's current quagmire.

Not really, all you need is a few good cases.

The first person that gets B rammed, or even a restricted A, get GOAL's lawyers ready.

By restricting a person's right to carry the state laws can be challenged on the very wording of the 2nd "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", by not allowing a person who is obviously legally able to own fire arms from being able to carry ("Bear") their fire arm their rights are being infringed upon.

So, with one case you're able to not only challenge the various restrictions and multiple license system in Mass, you're also able to get open carry more clearly defined as legal.

Now, the next case could easily be the state's approved fire arms roster, that can be challenged based off the wording in the Heller ruling, that people are allowed to own "guns in common use", now the EEOPS roster disallows the purchase and ownership of firearms in common use, so this too can be over turned in court.

It's going to take a few cases and allot of time, but this can be done.

 

[cekim]

Not really, all you need is a few good cases.

The first person that gets B rammed, or even a restricted A, get GOAL's lawyers ready.

I doubt CCW will be the first challenge and frankly with Elmer J Scalia on the bench, it's not even a safe bet.

First up is likely a storage law issue - since those are fresh on the books thanks to the SJC there are people in the pipe to appeal.

Next is the non-felon who gets charged with possession without a license.

Then, maybe the subtleties of on-line ammo and glock-hate will get hashed out...

Then, way down the line CCW will be brought up...

 

[cb1]

Keep in mind that even if the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the States, it won't stop them from continually implementing stupid laws and forcing us to challenge each one that comes along. Just look at DC after Heller. They're taking the "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" route.

 

[Bob P]

I expect that even after McDonald nothing will change. With a bunch of states telling the feds that gun laws don't apply their state (if not involved in interstate commerce) then the Mass SJC will insist that they are following the Scotus ruling and that licensing, bans, storage requirements, etc. do not constitute an infringement on the 2A. and they are essentially in compliance already.

Basically the SJC daring the feds to actually DO something. I don't see the feds taking action.

This. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit challenging them and then get it heard by the SCOTUS. Problem is, with the whole 'reasonable restrictions' crap of the Heller decision, the SCOTUS might agree that MA isn't infringing. Not saying it should be done, just saying it depends on the makup of the court and a few other things re the storage laws. I'd say we've a much better chance at the discretionary licensing and the AWB then the storage laws.

 

[seanc]

This. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit challenging them and then get it heard by the SCOTUS. Problem is, with the whole 'reasonable restrictions' crap of the Heller decision, the SCOTUS might agree that MA isn't infringing. Not saying it should be done, just saying it depends on the makup of the court and a few other things re the storage laws. I'd say we've a much better chance at the discretionary licensing and the AWB then the storage laws.

As long as the Scotus ruling includes any sort of language that includes terms like "reasonable restrictions" nothing will change.
Yes, it is a step in the right direction and yes ultimately, somebody may be able to get to the USSC to bring a challenge of some sort. But that takes a lot of money and a long time. Put that with the fact that it's generally not a black and white question but rather a murky grey area of "reasonableness". i Think the best we can hope for is that the court in MacDonald gives a very clear and broad ruling that give no wiggle room, but that is not likely to happen.

I predict they will incorporate. Mass will recognize the incorporation and contend that they are going along and that any local laws fall under being "reasonable", business as usual.

 

[gjones77]

I doubt CCW will be the first challenge and frankly with Elmer J Scalia on the bench, it's not even a safe bet.

First up is likely a storage law issue - since those are fresh on the books thanks to the SJC there are people in the pipe to appeal.

Next is the non-felon who gets charged with possession without a license.

Then, maybe the subtleties of on-line ammo and glock-hate will get hashed out...

Then, way down the line CCW will be brought up...

The reason I bring up the CCW issue first is that on it's face it can be easily challenged using the wording of the 2A, once it's incorporated against the states, Mass' law effectively bans "bearing" arms, meaning carrying, so this can not only eliminate many of the restrictions on licenses, it can also clear up open carry, which would then remove the unsuitability clause for printing or when your fire arm becomes exposed.

 

[seanc]

I doubt CCW will be the first challenge and frankly with Elmer J Scalia on the bench, it's not even a safe bet.

First up is likely a storage law issue - since those are fresh on the books thanks to the SJC there are people in the pipe to appeal.

Next is the non-felon who gets charged with possession without a license.

Then, maybe the subtleties of on-line ammo and glock-hate will get hashed out...

Then, way down the line CCW will be brought up...

I'd expect we'd see AWB, Mag restrictions and maybe even NFA (taxes)/ the '86 MG ban, GCA '34 come up before CCW issues. Elmer J Scalia seemed pretty interested in the whole machine gun thing in Heller. Maybe he's lusting for an Hk Mk19 to hunt ducks with and it's the only way he'll ever get one..

 

[Titan]

As long as the Scotus ruling includes any sort of language that includes terms like "reasonable restrictions" nothing will change.
Yes, it is a step in the right direction and yes ultimately, somebody may be able to get to the USSC to bring a challenge of some sort. But that takes a lot of money and a long time. Put that with the fact that it's generally not a black and white question but rather a murky grey area of "reasonableness". i Think the best we can hope for is that the court in MacDonald gives a very clear and broad ruling that give no wiggle room, but that is not likely to happen.

I predict they will incorporate. Mass will recognize the incorporation and contend that they are going along and that any local laws fall under being "reasonable", business as usual.

Agreed.

We all lost when the SC accepted the notion of 'reasonable restricitons' over the term 'shall not be infringed'!

 

[cekim]

I'd expect we'd see AWB, Mag restrictions and maybe even NFA (taxes)/ the '86 MG ban, GCA '34 come up before CCW issues. Elmer J Scalia seemed pretty interested in the whole machine gun thing in Heller. Maybe he's lusting for an Hk Mk19 to hunt ducks with and it's the only way he'll ever get one..

He was interested all right, but not in a good way... It was made clear that 2A did not apply and they would not have gotten a favorable ruling in Heller had they tried to press this issue...

 

[seanc]

He was interested all right, but not in a good way... It was made clear that 2A did not apply and they would not have gotten a favorable ruling in Heller had they tried to press this issue...

I got a different feeling reading his remarks. Esp re m16, common use, etc..
But as I don't tend to read court stuff often, I was just reading what it said and have no context as to how he said things or what he has said elsewhere at different times.