Coyote Whiskey
NES Member
Should be interesting
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/supreme-court-to-review-state-gun-laws/
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/supreme-court-to-review-state-gun-laws/
Last edited by a moderator:
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***
Nice.
I hope they make the right call.
McDonald was not the one I wanted for this. I wanted Nordyke because it had the knock on effect of dealing with what is an arm and nordyke had nothing to do with guns. McDonald is an easy one for the court, and it will only answer one question. Once that question is answered, then nordyke loses the wind in it's sails and the "nunchuka" industry has no capacity to challenge the .gov without the aid of the firerarms industry.
It'll never really be over.
I think you meant Maloney when you said Nordyke. Maloney v Rice is the case challenging the NY nunchuku ban. Nordyke v King is the California case about gun shows at county fairgrounds.
IMO McDonald is a better case than the similar NRA v Chicago, because it challenges more provisions of the Chicago law, and it's being run by Alan Gura, who won one for the good guys already. Also, McDonald raises the issue of overruling the Slaughterhouse cases, which will attract a lot of interest and support from liberal legal scholars.
Hopefully this works out well for the people of Chicago. The next thing on the list should be the right for CCW outside their homes because right now in Illinois there is no such thing as CCW outside ones home.
So let me totally understand this without the 14th Amendment we don’t get the 2ND Amendment or any others ?
Hopefully this works out well for the people of Chicago. The next thing on the list should be the right for CCW outside their homes because right now in Illinois there is no such thing as CCW outside ones home.
IANAL, but assuming that SCOTUS decides in favor of incorporation, very little changes automatically. Strict prohibitions on possession in the home, such as those in Chicago and a few other places are out. Essentially arbitrary systems limiting possession such as NYC and perhaps Massachusetts are seriously endangered, and are very likely to fall when challenged. Nothing changes regarding carry unless and until some case arguing that "keep and bear" includes carry in public. Assuming that happens, it will almost certainly be against some places such as Illinois or Wisconsin where carry is banned. If that case wins, subsequent cases would undoubtedly follow against arbitrary carry license systems (e.g., NY, MA, CA). Nothing moves too fast in the judicial system.
Ken
Here's my totally not-a-lawyer take on how McDonald and its progeny will affect things.
Note that this is my guess as to what will happen, not what I want to happen.
- The Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states. But...
- Existing federal laws about handgun transfers (like the FFL-to-FFL requirement for interstate transfers), any future "assault weapons" bans, etc. will be substantially upheld.
- The courts will not find any constitutional right to carry (open or concealed) in public.
- The courts will not find any constitutional right to own firearms without a license.
- Absolute bans on having a handgun in the home will be ruled unconstitutional.
- In states that want to license handguns, courts will require that at a minimum there must be a shall-issue "self-defense in the home" license and that such licenses must include the right to take a locked, unloaded firearm to a range or other practice facility and use it there.
- "May issue" licensing regimes (especially patchwork ones like in MA) will ultimately be held unconstitutional (on equal protection grounds).
- As long as a roster has "enough" firearms on it or regulations like MA's firearms consumer "protection" ones don't prohibit "too many" firearms, they will be upheld. Specifically, both the MA EOPS list and the AG's list will, sadly, be upheld.