SCOTUS hears Chicago Case Megathread

[gjones77]

Today in section A4 of the republican
They had an article about the Mcdonald vs Chicago supreme court case and at the end of the article they cite Sotomayr (SP?) as saying "Would you be happy if we incorporated it and said reasonable regulation is part of the incorporation?". But what is reasonable? here in MA we have a long list of regulations/restrictions that MA has deemed reasonable, now whats to stop MA after this ruling which hopefully will be in Mcdonald's sides favor from handing out more and more regulation that they deem as being reasonable

"Reasonable" is something that is very subjective, you are right in that regard, as for what defines it or how it would be defined, that's something that will take many legal cases to hammer out.

Each regulation in a state that someone sees as "unreasonable" can be challenged in the state courts, and the judge presiding over that case will then have the opportunity to look at the McDonald case majority opinion and decide if the regulation or law being discussed violates some portion of that decision and infringes on a person's rights.

So you may never get a nationally uniform definition of "reasonable", reasonable to Mass is unreasonable in NH, so you're more than likely going to have varying degrees of reasonable from state to state.

Don't get me wrong, once the first few cases are heard with regards to "reasonable", you're going to have precedence in the preceding cases that may help to clarify the matter legally down the road, for better or worse.

 

[JRyan]

I'd be happy if she looked up the meaning of the words "shall" "not" "be" and "infringed" then used that to make the decision.

 

[gjones77]

I'd be happy if she looked up the meaning of the words "shall" "not" "be" and "infringed" then used that to make the decision.

I wish it was that simple, then we wouldn't be here talking about it...

Now, your saying that then brings up the legal definition of "infringed".

Based on the opinion of our "elected" officials, the laws here in Mass do not "infringe" on your rights at all, you're able to own a fire arm, and you can take it to the range, so the state isn't "infringing" on anything.

Now, you and I both know that the laws are written in a very purposely confusing manner to dissuade people from trying to get a license, or make it extremely difficult to keep that license, and we feel that is infringing on our right. (which it is).

So we need to challenge every and any law on the books that restricts our rights once the 2A is incorporated, as long as the wording of the majority opinion gives us some legal ammo to work with.

 

[HooVooLoo]

Just finished reading through the whole thing...

Feldman blew it. Yay. You can just feel it while reading the rebuttals.

A major win for 2A.

 

[cekim]

"Reasonable" is something that is very subjective, you are right in that regard, as for what defines it or how it would be defined, that's something that will take many legal cases to hammer out.
...
So you may never get a nationally uniform definition of "reasonable", reasonable to Mass is unreasonable in NH, so you're more than likely going to have varying degrees of reasonable from state to state.

What's worse is that you can see from some of the comments yesterday that "the 4" on the bench are receptive to non-sense statistics claiming linkage between guns and violence (which are obviously false, but that won't stop them from citing them...)

 

[gjones77]

What's worse is that you can see from some of the comments yesterday that "the 4" on the bench are receptive to non-sense statistics claiming linkage between guns and violence (which are obviously false, but that won't stop them from citing them...)

We're never going to get rid of that nonsense, so from my point of view, who cares what they say as long as the 2A gets incorporated, then we can focus on the next mission.

Again, it's baby steps, they chipped away our rights slowly, we need to get them back the same way.

 

[GunGrey]

Now if states rights are incorporated what can we expect to be able to do in MA here. if since above someone mentioned that MA laws dont infringe on our rights to own a firearm but make it a PIA to have one. What will stop them from saying we have to have a certified lockbox sold by the state, or that we have to have firearms unloaded and locked along with ammo in another locked place. It isnt saying we cannot have firearms but its dictating on what terms we have them.

 

[gjones77]

Now if states rights are incorporated what can we expect to be able to do in MA here. if since above someone mentioned that MA laws dont infringe on our rights to own a firearm but make it a PIA to have one. What will stop them from saying we have to have a certified lockbox sold by the state, or that we have to have firearms unloaded and locked along with ammo in another locked place. It isnt saying we cannot have firearms but its dictating on what terms we have them.

The next step is to challenge every PIA law as being unreasonable and infringing.

Big strides in preventing all of this is to pass H2259, if our legislature was to pass that law, then all of the PIA laws in place would disappear for the most part, so we need to use suing the state for every law as leverage.

Basically, you pass the law and we'll be appeased (for now) if you don't we'll challenge every law on the books with regards to the 2A, win or lose they're going to have to rewrite many laws, so if we get them to pass H2259 then we've made allot of headway.

 

[VARCHAR2]

I think the outcome of this whole case will turn on the "reasonableness" bit. I see the 4 using it as a bargaining chip, and that seems sneaky suspicious. Why would they do that? I highly doubt they care more about a unanimous decision than they do about their anti-gun feelings. I don't like it one bit.

 

[cekim]

I think the outcome of this whole case will turn on the "reasonableness" bit. I see the 4 using it as a bargaining chip,

And I see Antonin J. Fudd rolling over right along with them on this...

 

[VARCHAR2]

Isn't it possible that a "reasonable" clause could, in the future, result in a more restricted 2A right? It seems like it would open up a can of worms and result in future SCOTUS 2A cases pertaining to reasonableness alone. If that's so, I think I would prefer no incorporation at this point.

 

[VARCHAR2]

I speculate that the majority opinion will be written either by Alito or Kennedy.

 

[cekim]

Isn't it possible that a "reasonable" clause could, in the future, result in a more restricted 2A right? It seems like it would open up a can of worms and result in future SCOTUS 2A cases pertaining to reasonableness alone. If that's so, I think I would prefer no incorporation at this point.

States which respect the true meaning of 2A will still be able to... States which do not will have less latitude in their abuse - I cannot see any downside to this other than the abstract loss of hope for a better future in MA if the court upholds ludicrous "reasonable restrictions".

 

[gjones77]

Isn't it possible that a "reasonable" clause could, in the future, result in a more restricted 2A right? It seems like it would open up a can of worms and result in future SCOTUS 2A cases pertaining to reasonableness alone. If that's so, I think I would prefer no incorporation at this point.

With regards to "reasonable", I believe the SCOTUS's ruling in the McDonald case may lay down a very broad interpretation of reasonable, meaning that they will give some direction in the matter, but leave much to the states as the way it should be.

We all here believe in a very strong 2A, but we also have a strong belief in states rights, so in this matter there's a fine line that will be walked, and we need to realize that.

Reasonable isn't going to be the troubling word in all this ruling, the word we need to focus on is "infringe", what infringes on a person's right?

Does allowing them to own a firearm, yet require a licensing practice with stringent standards, multiple hoops, and leaving the final decisions to the chief of their town in order to attain that license infringe on their rights?

Does banning ccw or open carry, effectively confining their 2A rights to their home only infringe on their rights?

We say yes, these actions do infringe on their rights, yet you're going to have politicians who write laws that walk a narrow line, they will need to be challenged.

So we need not look at reasonable as closely as we need to look at "infringe", that's the word that we need to put our focus on since many of our laws, particularly here in Mass, infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms.

 

[cekim]

With regards to "reasonable", I believe the SCOTUS's ruling in the McDonald case may lay down a very broad interpretation of reasonable, meaning that they will give some direction in the matter, but leave much to the states as the way it should be.

Yes, possibly something stupid like "I'll know it when I see it" standard used for porn... [sad2]

That said, we are no worse off in free states with such a standard and much better off in totalitarian states like MA...

 

[gjones77]

Yes, possibly something stupid like "I'll know it when I see it" standard used for porn... [sad2]

That said, we are no worse off in free states with such a standard and much better off in totalitarian states like MA...

Cekim, their ruling isn't going to be the end all be all we're all hoping for, we still need to fight every law we can based off the question if that law "infringes" on a person's right, and we can make that argument with regards to many Mass laws.

And I agree, those in free states still have it better than us even after this ruling since in Mass they're not going to change the laws unless forced to, but at least we now have solid legal standing and clarity with regards to the 2A both federally and in the state.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

With regards to "reasonable", I believe the SCOTUS's ruling in the McDonald case may lay down a very broad interpretation of reasonable, meaning that they will give some direction in the matter, but leave much to the states as the way it should be.

We all here believe in a very strong 2A, but we also have a strong belief in states rights, so in this matter there's a fine line that will be walked, and we need to realize that.

Reasonable isn't going to be the troubling word in all this ruling, the word we need to focus on is "infringe", what infringes on a person's right?

Does allowing them to own a firearm, yet require a licensing practice with stringent standards, multiple hoops, and leaving the final decisions to the chief of their town in order to attain that license infringe on their rights?

Does banning ccw or open carry, effectively confining their 2A rights to their home only infringe on their rights?

We say yes, these actions do infringe on their rights, yet you're going to have politicians who write laws that walk a narrow line, they will need to be challenged.

So we need not look at reasonable as closely as we need to look at "infringe", that's the word that we need to put our focus on since many of our laws, particularly here in Mass, infringe on one's ability to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case was that citizens in DC have a right to own firearms and keep them in their homes, subject to "reasonable" government restrictions. SCOTUS did not address the issue of concealed carry of any type of weapon (firearm, edged weapon, sap, blackjack, baton, etc.). I have a feeling that the Chicago case will end the same way.

 

[gjones77]

SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case was that citizens in DC have a right to own firearms and keep them in their homes, subject to "reasonable" government restrictions. SCOTUS did not address the issue of concealed carry of any type of weapon (firearm, edged weapon, sap, blackjack, baton, etc.). I have a feeling that the Chicago case will end the same way.

That may very well be the case, but that doesn't mean we have to take it sitting down, these laws need to be challenged in the courts, focus on exact wording and ask for direct definitions.

This is just the start, people need to stop looking at this ruling as the the end all be all of our fight, it's only the start, we need to challenge more laws in order to get our rights as free men back.

 

[drgrant]

Isn't it possible that a "reasonable" clause could, in the future, result in a more restricted 2A right? It seems like it would open up a can of worms and result in future SCOTUS 2A cases pertaining to reasonableness alone. If that's so, I think I would prefer no incorporation at this point.

There is no can of worms. Actually, it's more like that can has already been open and has been open for a century or more. States have literally been able to do whatever they want up until this point, with ZERO concern about constitutional rights.

States and local governments NEVER took the US Constitution into consideration when developing any gun laws. So anything is literally a step forward, however minimal. We're getting a baseline to fight from constitutionally where we never had one before, at least in something that is hard for these tyrants to dispute. I have no doubt the moonbats will still try to pass unconstitutional laws, but the chances of them getting struck down are far greater with a fully vetted and incorporated 2nd amendment decision in our favor. Before these tyrants didn't have to worry about it at all, because things like US v Miller gave the lower courts lots of excuses to completely ignore cases brought on the 2nd amendment... in many cases they will no longer have an "easy out".

Moonbat districts will always have crappy restrictions, I don't think there is a way around that... but the tyrants will not be able to impose a 100% ban on gun ownership, or at least they won't get away with it for any length of time. We will still have to keep fighting, but this is like establishing a few heavily reinforced pillboxes with machine guns that have an unlimited ammo supply. The enemy will no longer be able to advance beyond those pillboxes without getting cut down in the process.

-Mike

 

[Eye5600]

Isn't it possible that a "reasonable" clause could, in the future, result in a more restricted 2A right?

IANAL. I could be way off base here.

The only things that are sure to change are the laws and practices that amount to handgun ban as they have in Chicago, New York City, and a few other places. Everything else is in up for grabs. If the example of DC shows anything, it is that most every jurisdiction will fight to keep what it has, and will only accept change if forced by the courts. A few may see the handwriting on the wall and make some change in the law designed to satisfy the courts without making much of a change on the street. Given that there is a breeze (hardly a wind) in the pro-gun direction in some places, it's even possible that there will be a pro-gun move somewhere, e.g. a state invalidating all city/local laws that are more restrictive than the state law. I wouldn't bet on it though.

It will be interesting to see what attitude the courts show to laws like California and Mass that put great restrictions on the number of models available for sale. This is clearly a partial gun ban justified by calling it "safety", and believe it or not, the Justices of the Federal Courts are plenty smart enough to see through that. DC was forced to lighten up from their first try. I can't see SCOTUS saying that it is unconstitutional to forbid the sale of a gun that may fire when dropped. On the other hand, I can see them being hostile to regulations with the effect of eliminating low-cost guns (Good news for Hi-Point!) on the grounds that poor people have the right to own a gun just like rich (!) people who can afford a Ruger.

I don't see SCOTUS meddling with the restrictions on ownership by felons, drug users, etc, and that really implies that review by local LE is probably going to be allowed.

Especially since the incorporation is via the due process clause, I can see that changes may be forced in laws that allow/mandate guns being taken away with a some sort of prompt hearing. Connecticut has a law that allows the local police to remove guns from the home of a person who seems to be (for example) deranged or suicidal. That might need to be changed to mandate a prompter hearing that what is called for now. Likewise, the Lautenberg law that guns are take from anyone with a restraining order would seem to me to require change since there is basically no hearing requirement. (I'm not entirely sure what "due process" would mean in this case. The judge issuing the RO certain knows what the effect is going to be, so there is some process there, but the object of the RO is usually not represented when the RO is handed down, so he/she really has no process at all. Street lore is the an RO is often sought to increase pressure in a divorce in cases where protection is not actually needed, so the law really does need some hearing requirement, gun issues aside.)

 

[dixidawg]

Question:

It is my understanding that some Mass case law has been decided based upon the finding in Davis that individuals do not have right to arms in Mass.

With a favorable McDonald decision, would those folks now have grounds for appeal?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

.....


It will be interesting to see what attitude the courts show to laws like California and Mass that put great restrictions on the number of models available for sale. This is clearly a partial gun ban justified by calling it "safety", and believe it or not, the Justices of the Federal Courts are plenty smart enough to see through that. DC was forced to lighten up from their first try. I can't see SCOTUS saying that it is unconstitutional to forbid the sale of a gun that may fire when dropped. On the other hand, I can see them being hostile to regulations with the effect of eliminating low-cost guns (Good news for Hi-Point!) on the grounds that poor people have the right to own a gun just like rich (!) people who can afford a Ruger.
.................

There are two 9th circuit cases against CA that you should be following: Sykes and Pena. Both of the complaints are very readable and both potentially have implications for MA is decisions are favorable. Currently both cases are on on-hold pending a decision in Nordyke which itself is waiting on the McDonald decision.

Skyes vs. McGinness challenges issuance of permits on an equal protection basis. The plaintiffs have basically been treated differently in one jurisdiction than in another. The situation is analogous to being downgraded upon moving to a red town in MA.

Pena challenges the CA roster. Part of the case takes issue with guns being 'safe' on year but then becoming 'unsafe' when manufacturers stop paying to put them on the list. But part of the case revolves around limiting access to handguns that are otherwise "in common use".

These Cali cases are very important to use here in MA. Folks should familiarize themselves with the issues and follow their progress.

Question:

It is my understanding that some Mass case law has been decided based upon the finding in Davis that individuals do not have right to arms in Mass.

With a favorable McDonald decision, would those folks now have grounds for appeal?

The expected decision in McDonald would most assuredly give people who have been denied on suitability grounds reason to appeal.

 

[Pilgrim]

But part of the case revolves around limiting access to handguns that are otherwise "in common use".

In Heller, the Supremes already said you couldn't ban guns 'in common use'. I guess that incorporation would settle that for CA (and us).

 

[drgrant]

Question:

It is my understanding that some Mass case law has been decided based upon the finding in Davis that individuals do not have right to arms in Mass.

With a favorable McDonald decision, would those folks now have grounds for appeal?

Probably, but the case has to be "pure"- eg, the person had to have been denied soley by administrative fiat or suitibility, with no criminal element that would cause a disqualifier. With some case work in MA, this could effectively kill suitability denials. I imagine anti chiefs will still make unconstitutional denials as long as they're not punished for it, but with case law in place it would turn an appeal of such denials into a "wham bam thank you ma'am" 5 minute court drama instead of the REALLY expensive crapshoot that it is now.

Not sure whatever happened with it, but I wonder how this decision would affect things like the Cotnoir and Ragsdale cases. I know Cotnoir didn't get his license back, but Ragsdale may still be fighting this, not sure if he won against the PD or not on suitability issues. There's also that guy that jcohen is representing who was effectively denied an LTC because of "stuff he said on NES" and nothing more.

-Mike

 

[Gadsden]

Interview with Gura and Gottlieb:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/lead-attorney-for-mcdonald-v-chicago-discusses-landmark-gun-case

 

[yanici]

Interview with Gura and Gottlieb:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/lead-attorney-for-mcdonald-v-chicago-discusses-landmark-gun-case

Thank you for this post.

 

[center442]

Thanks for that info, Knuckle Dragger. I was not aware of those two cases.

There are two 9th circuit cases against CA that you should be following: Sykes and Pena. Both of the complaints are very readable and both potentially have implications for MA is decisions are favorable. Currently both cases are on on-hold pending a decision in Nordyke which itself is waiting on the McDonald decision.

Skyes vs. McGinness challenges issuance of permits on an equal protection basis. The plaintiffs have basically been treated differently in one jurisdiction than in another. The situation is analogous to being downgraded upon moving to a red town in MA.

Regardless of the outcome in this case, I would assume that it will be appealed to SCOTUS by the losing side. If Skyes eventually prevails at the SCOTUS level I can see a similar case(s) arising in the PRM. In doing a web search on this case I came across this thumbnail description of the intent behind the case:

This suit seeks to do two things.

1. "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."

2. "Good moral character" shall be interpreted to mean "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms" under the common understanding of that term (felon in possession, no 5150 bar, etc.)

A third but not explicit item is that may really means shall.

The third item, that word may, is really the sticking point in Massachusetts (well, one of the sticking points). I suspect that the question of infringement will have to be dealt with as a separate issue. IOW, if the state is forced to recognize the inherent right to own a firearm, what will constitute an infringment of that right? Taking a class? Paying $100 to get a license to enjoy that right? How many hoops will a person have to jump through before the court(s) decide that it constitutes infringment? I wouldn't expect MA or CA to just roll over and say "Okay, you win." Especially when they have a bottomless source of funding (the taxpayers) to argue their position in court(s).

Pena challenges the CA roster. Part of the case takes issue with guns being 'safe' on year but then becoming 'unsafe' when manufacturers stop paying to put them on the list. But part of the case revolves around limiting access to handguns that are otherwise "in common use".

This one really applies to MA. The CA roster, for all of it's stupidity, is at least a single list of what you can and can't buy. In MA we not only have a roster, we have the "super secret" non-list forced on us by the Attorney General's Office under the guise of "consumer safety." I don't think that any lawyer could make a reasonable argument supporting this in any court. How can anyone argue that gun XXX is unsafe if sold by a dealer, but is apparently perfectly safe to be owned/sold/traded by an individual? Not to mention, that gun XXX is widely sold all over the country. If gun XXX is truly unsafe, then I would expect the AG could produce reams of statistics showing the massive damage caused by gun XXX in those areas where it can be legally sold. Hell, just illustrate where and how that unsafe gun has caused unreasonable damage in MA itself.

These Cali cases are very important to use here in MA. Folks should familiarize themselves with the issues and follow their progress.



The expected decision in McDonald would most assuredly give people who have been denied on suitability grounds reason to appeal.

If these court decisions go in our favor, it opens a Pandora's box of legal questions. For example: Citizen Smith uses his gun to defend himself in MA. He is charged with murder/manslaughter, but is acquitted in court. Citizen Smith has his LTC revoked (or not renewed) by his issuing authority. Smith can appeal that decision in court and may well win. But what happens if Smith has moved to another state and applies for a license there? If he honestly answers the question about his license being revoked or suspended, he probably won't get a license in his new state of residence. Since Smith is no longer a resident of MA, how does he go about rectifying his situation? It seems to me that MA gun laws are like herpes: the gift that keeps on giving.

The future looks very interesting. I'll be watching the CA cases with great interest.

 

[Midnight412]

If SCOTUS rules in our favor in this case, how would the Americans With Disabilities Act come into play? I think maybe a lot of "reasonable" restrictions that states may want to impse would be NG becuase it could discriminate against disabled persons. For example, someone with only one arm cannot use a rifle, but could very well use a semi-auto pistol. The disabled person would have the 2A right, which would also give him the right to own "arms" that they can effectively use. Then that opens up the door to removing bans on Hi-cap magazines, becuase it may be difficult for the diabled person to reload, thus necessitating a hi-cap magazine so that he can shoot his gun more than 10 times if need be.

 

[Skald]

Was reading the transcript and only got to the begining of Feldmans argument and knew the way Roberts, Scalia and most importantly Kennedy grilled him. Remember, Kennedy right now is the key, he will be the one who makes or breaks it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Thanks for that info, Knuckle Dragger. I was not aware of those two cases.

Regardless of the outcome in this case, I would assume that it will be appealed to SCOTUS by the losing side. If Skyes eventually prevails at the SCOTUS level I can see a similar case(s) arising in the PRM. In doing a web search on this case I came across this thumbnail description of the intent behind the case:

I wouldn't assume that every contentious gun case will not go to the SC. The high court only takes a small fraction of the cases appealed to it and they usually only do so because there's a major unresolved point of law at stake. I'm still surprised that a second 2A case made it to the court so quickly after Heller and continue to believe McDonald got there because of Gura's POI angle.

The third item, that word may, is really the sticking point in Massachusetts (well, one of the sticking points). I suspect that the question of infringement will have to be dealt with as a separate issue. IOW, if the state is forced to recognize the inherent right to own a firearm, what will constitute an infringment of that right? Taking a class? Paying $100 to get a license to enjoy that right? How many hoops will a person have to jump through before the court(s) decide that it constitutes infringment? I wouldn't expect MA or CA to just roll over and say "Okay, you win." Especially when they have a bottomless source of funding (the taxpayers) to argue their position in court(s).

The court has continued to keep the door open to regulation and regulation is not in anyway synonymous with infringement. I don't think there's any case to make against safety classes or $100 fees. Neither would be high on my list of things to change in what is otherwise a 'target rich environment'.

This one really applies to MA. The CA roster, for all of it's stupidity, is at least a single list of what you can and can't buy. In MA we not only have a roster, we have the "super secret" non-list forced on us by the Attorney General's Office under the guise of "consumer safety." I don't think that any lawyer could make a reasonable argument supporting this in any court. How can anyone argue that gun XXX is unsafe if sold by a dealer, but is apparently perfectly safe to be owned/sold/traded by an individual? Not to mention, that gun XXX is widely sold all over the country. If gun XXX is truly unsafe, then I would expect the AG could produce reams of statistics showing the massive damage caused by gun XXX in those areas where it can be legally sold. Hell, just illustrate where and how that unsafe gun has caused unreasonable damage in MA itself.

The Pena outcome will really be our green light (if any here). And what we might have to work with will depend on the 9th circuit's reasoning if they do find in favor of Pena. The AG's list will be the one really hard to challenge because it's aimed at dealers and subject to selective enforcement. It really forces a potential plaintiff to sue the AG because the AG can just ignore any violation that they think might be test case.

If these court decisions go in our favor, it opens a Pandora's box of legal questions. For example: Citizen Smith uses his gun to defend himself in MA. He is charged with murder/manslaughter, but is acquitted in court. Citizen Smith has his LTC revoked (or not renewed) by his issuing authority. Smith can appeal that decision in court and may well win. But what happens if Smith has moved to another state and applies for a license there? If he honestly answers the question about his license being revoked or suspended, he probably won't get a license in his new state of residence. Since Smith is no longer a resident of MA, how does he go about rectifying his situation? It seems to me that MA gun laws are like herpes: the gift that keeps on giving.

I don't think this is even remotely an issue. It's common NES mythology to think that the justified use of a firearm will automatically result in criminal charges and the forfeiture of an LTC and firearms. Like all myths it's not true and we really need to stop spreading this silliness. I haven't seen where that's happened absent exigent circumstances. In fact I'm well acquainted with someone in this position and they never lost their LTC, it was never even an issue.