SCOTUS to get to McDonald v Chicago on monday

[spider murphy]

According to SCOTUSblog, SCOTUS will issue their final opinions of the term on monday. Hopefully it will go our way. link... http://www.scotusblog.com/

 

[gjones77]

I was hoping the decision would come today, got my hopes up I guess.

From what I gathered during the initial hearing in March, and the questions asked by the Justices, it looks as if this will be ruled in our favor.

The swing vote (Kennedy) made the statement to the lawyer representing Chicago that is what he's saying is true, then the court ruled completely wrong in Heller, and he doesn't believe that.

So, I'm pretty confident it will be ruled in our favor, my only hopes after this is that the opinion will give a far more concrete description to the law versus the more ambiguous decisions they often give, so to prevent further cases being brought up to the Supreme Court.

 

[spider murphy]

So, I'm pretty confident it will be ruled in our favor, my only hopes after this is that the opinion will give a far more concrete description to the law versus the more ambiguous decisions they often give, so to prevent further cases being brought up to the Supreme Court.

I'm fairly optimistic that it will be ruled in our favor but believe they will be as vague as they possibly can, leaving plenty of wiggle room for the anti-2nd folks to regulate our rights until other cases come along forcing them to knock it off.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Maybe I'm just a bit wrapped today, but did anyone else get a bit annoyed by the fact that the bloogers kept referring to MacDonald as "Guns" instead of the "the second amendment case?" They referred to other cases by the part of law they applied to.

 

[TheRoland]

Maybe I'm just a bit wrapped today, but did anyone else get a bit annoyed by the fact that the bloogers kept referring to MacDonald as "Guns" instead of the "the second amendment case?" They referred to other cases by the part of law they applied to.

Nope. I'm more annoyed that the SCOTUS clearly has a well-developed sense of drama. They've got three (out of, really, four) of the major cases left for Monday.

 

[gjones77]

I'm fairly optimistic that it will be ruled in our favor but believe they will be as vague as they possibly can, leaving plenty of wiggle room for the anti-2nd folks to regulate our rights until other cases come along forcing them to knock it off.

I know, they always do, but in Heller Scalia was a bit more descriptive in some areas, and vague in others, I'm hoping we get a more descriptive opinion in certain areas of the law in our favor, leaving a just little wiggle room for the antis

 

[gjones77]

Maybe I'm just a bit wrapped today, but did anyone else get a bit annoyed by the fact that the bloogers kept referring to MacDonald as "Guns" instead of the "the second amendment case?" They referred to other cases by the part of law they applied to.

You're going to get that, they are after all journalists, so their feelings are pretty well known.

 

[TheRoland]

I know, they always do, but in Heller Scalia was a bit more descriptive in some areas, and vague in others, I'm hoping we get a more descriptive opinion in certain areas of the law in our favor, leaving a just little wiggle room for the antis

We obviously don't know for sure, but if Alito has the opinion as seems to be the thought at the moment, I think the odds of this are low.

 

[drumenigma]

I've been waiting so long for this as I am sure many others have as well. From the earlier commentary this year it definitely sounded like it will be in our favor but you never know.

 

[Mr Weebles]

My best guess is they affirm the right of Chicagoans to keep and bear arms but allow "reasonable" restrictions.

They'll be fighting over "reasonable" for the next ten years.

 

[spider murphy]

My best guess is they affirm the right of Chicagoans to keep and bear arms but allow "reasonable" restrictions.

They'll be fighting over "reasonable" for the next ten years.

Sadly, this is likely the outcome. I guess you've got to start somewhere and I'm sure there are cases ready to go as we speak.

 

[MA_Shooter]

My best guess is they affirm the right of Chicagoans to keep and bear arms but allow "reasonable" restrictions.

They'll be fighting over "reasonable" for the next ten years.

+1 It's called job security

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sadly, this is likely the outcome. I guess you've got to start somewhere and I'm sure there are cases ready to go as we speak.

According to Alan Gottlieb (SAF) they have >10 cases lined up to file as soon as this opinion is dropped.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

According to Alan Gottlieb (SAF) they have >10 cases lined up to file as soon as this opinion is dropped.

The two big cases in California that are relevant to MA will kick into high gear 60 days after McDonald is decided. They are Skyes, which challenges discretionary licensing and Pina, which goes after California's 'Safe' handgun roster. Both of these cases will be highly applicable to MA.

I think >10 is a conservative number. There will be lots and lots of challenges all over the country, by many different groups and plaintiffs.

Maybe I'm just a bit wrapped today, but did anyone else get a bit annoyed by the fact that the bloogers kept referring to MacDonald as "Guns" instead of the "the second amendment case?" They referred to other cases by the part of law they applied to.

Actually I'm annoyed they don't talk about it as a 14th amendment case. We KNOW that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated against the states. We don't know what, if any guidance the justices will provide regarding the level of scrutiny that should be applied to gun control laws. I think they won't provide much.

What real legal-eagle are interested in is how much consideration the justices will give to Mr. Gura's argument that the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment should be brought back to life. That will be interesting. If they give that argument any credit at all it will be a major change in direction for the court.

 

[Alchemist17]

If their workload is too heavy I can help them by writing the opinion myself - they don't even need to credit me:

"The Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The city of Chicago, in seeking to regulate and control access to firearms within the city limits is explicitly and intentionally infringing on the right to bear arms. That such infringement is claimed to serve a governmental purpose is irrelevant given the wording of the Second Amendment, and the laws in question are hereby vacated."

 

[seanc]

My best guess is they affirm the right of Chicagoans to keep and bear arms but allow "reasonable" restrictions.

They'll be fighting over "reasonable" for the next ten years.

With the aftermath of Heller in DC. And the accompanying fiasco dealing with the obscene licensing hoops as well as the 1911=machine gun, etc.

With the fact that DC basically told the Scotus, thanks for your advise, now back to business as usual, almost..

You'd like to think that at least some degree of a pre-emptive smack down would be included in the opinion.

We can dream..

 

[gjones77]

With the aftermath of Heller in DC. And the accompanying fiasco dealing with the obscene licensing hoops as well as the 1911=machine gun, etc.

With the fact that DC basically told the Scotus, thanks for your advise, now back to business as usual, almost..

You'd like to think that at least some degree of a pre-emptive smack down would be included in the opinion.

We can dream..

I'm hoping that's the case, the government's hand should always be tied tightly when ever a question regarding rights is brought up.

 

[BradM]

According to Alan Gottlieb (SAF) they have >10 cases lined up to file as soon as this opinion is dropped.

I thought at the GOAL banquet he said it was much higher than that. Then again, maybe I have a bad memory.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I thought at the GOAL banquet he said it was much higher than that. Then again, maybe I have a bad memory.

No, I think you are correct. However I don't recall the number he threw out, so I felt safe saying ">10" rather than spouting a number randomly (and maybe getting called on it).

 

[lord1234]

F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One interesting consequence of a favorable McDonald ruling will be discretionary issuance of LTCs, and revocation thereof for actions that are not criminal offenses - including, but not limited to, denial due to an expired restraining order or revocation due to remaining silent when questioned. Since an LTC is required to merely possess a handgun, a court finding that possession is a "right" would logically subject denial of that right to the due process protections afforded all other rights.

Now, if the MA legislature had not done away with the provision that an FID covered possession of a handgun in your home back in 1998, the applicability of a favorable McDonald ruling to a discretionary LTC revocation or denial would be a bit more difficult to establish. So, we may find out that the MA gun control law of 1998 had a consequence not intended by it's proponents.

 

[lord1234]

One interesting consequence of a favorable McDonald ruling will be invalidation of discretionary issuance of LTCs, and revocation thereof for actions that are not criminal offenses - including, but not limited to, denial due to an expired restraining order or revocation due to remaining silent when questioned. Since an LTC is required to merely possess a handgun, a court finding that possession is a "right" would logically subject denial of that right to the due process protections afforded all other rights.

Now, if the MA legislature had not done away with the provision that an FID covered possession of a handgun in your home back in 1998, the applicability of a favorable McDonald ruling to a discretionary LTC revocation or denial would be a bit more difficult to establish. So, we may find out that the MA gun control law of 1998 had a consequence not intended by it's proponents.

Did I fix that correctly?

Also don't forget, that before anything changes, it must be brought to court.

 

[jlgolson]

ScotusBlog thinks that based on how the decisions have come down thus far, Alito will be writing the opinion for McDonald v Chicago.

Alito probably has the guns case because that's the last remaining case from March, and he is the only justice not to write in that sitting.

 

[Mr Weebles]

One interesting consequence of a favorable McDonald ruling will be discretionary issuance of LTCs, and revocation thereof for actions that are not criminal offenses - including, but not limited to, denial due to an expired restraining order or revocation due to remaining silent when questioned. Since an LTC is required to merely possess a handgun, a court finding that possession is a "right" would logically subject denial of that right to the due process protections afforded all other rights.

Now, if the MA legislature had not done away with the provision that an FID covered possession of a handgun in your home back in 1998, the applicability of a favorable McDonald ruling to a discretionary LTC revocation or denial would be a bit more difficult to establish. So, we may find out that the MA gun control law of 1998 had a consequence not intended by it's proponents.

If it is ruled an individual right applicable to the States, what about equality? Couldn't an argument be made that discretionary licensing powers applied unequally due to Chiefs of Police having varying levels of "fitness" is a violation of equality under the law? After all, if something is a right there should not be different applications of that right due to something as simple as geography or personal views of the Chiefs.

 

[TheRoland]

One interesting consequence of a favorable McDonald ruling will be discretionary issuance of LTCs, and revocation thereof for actions that are not criminal offenses - including, but not limited to, denial due to an expired restraining order or revocation due to remaining silent when questioned. Since an LTC is required to merely possess a handgun, a court finding that possession is a "right" would logically subject denial of that right to the due process protections afforded all other rights.

Now, if the MA legislature had not done away with the provision that an FID covered possession of a handgun in your home back in 1998, the applicability of a favorable McDonald ruling to a discretionary LTC revocation or denial would be a bit more difficult to establish. So, we may find out that the MA gun control law of 1998 had a consequence not intended by it's proponents.

This all logically follows, but I think it's going to be interesting to see how this actually gets applied, if the legislature notices, and what cases actually make it to the courts challenging this.

 

[Pilgrim]

I believe EVERY question will have to be fought out in court, thereby delaying every step of progress until and if the plaintiff will be found who can afford protracted legal processes.

 

[TheRoland]

I believe EVERY question will have to be fought out in court, thereby delaying every step of progress until and if the plaintiff will be found who can afford protracted legal processes.

Indeed; my other objection to Rob's logic is that DC has so far succeeded in a very oppressive licensing scheme, despite Heller. This may yet be struck down, but it will have to make it through the courts first.

Something not often mentioned is that despite Heller, semi-automatic handguns are still banned in DC, plain language of the decision notwithstanding.

 

[seanc]

On a related topic.. What happens to all of those people (in Mass) convicted of the crime of possessing a firearm w/o an FID or LTC if this goes through?
Do all of those people immediately get appeals? Do they get released?


And it seems that all of this, Heller and McDonald only apply to owning a firearm, presumably in their own home. Are there any TO BEAR cases in the works?

 

[TheRoland]

On a related topic.. What happens to all of those people (in Mass) convicted of the crime of possessing a firearm w/o an FID or LTC if this goes through?
Do all of those people immediately get appeals? Do they get released?

Maybe one or two will have masterful lawyers who can construct very clever arguments in a pending appeal. IANAL.

 

[Pilgrim]

Are there any TO BEAR cases in the works?

I can't find the quote but there is a small piece of Heller that covers this. But I don't think most states will acknowledge it without a fight.