SCOTUS to get to McDonald v Chicago on monday

[Len-2A Training]

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?

Alan Gottlieb told us (GOAL Banquet attendees) that they have a "to bear" case out of DC to bring after this ruling.

-----------

I do NOT expect MA to "give an inch" on ANY anti-gun laws/regs/interpretations. Anything that will change in MA will REQUIRE a separate court case and many years of litigation!

You can look at LEOSA and how it was enacted in MA as a prime example. MA regs outright violate the Fed Law itself, yet nothing is being done to change it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

For restricted permits - probably. For "Restrictions: none" - considerably more difficult as Heller was not about "carry"

 

[terraformer]

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.

Yes, but the success of that argument may end up relying on the level of scrutiny applied to 2A related cases. It is conceivable however that irrespective of heller/macdonald, an equal protection case may have been successful on it's own merits. But with an elevated level of scrutiny, you have better chances.

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.

I hope cases where there are plaintiffs and not defendants.

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.

I agree. The state believes they have an advantage here.

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.

I am afraid that we will have to live with something less than the free state model. The key is to be able to show that the harm to gun rights is not rewarded with effective crime control and that the infringement comes with no upside. This will be important because I don't believe we will have strict scrutiny of the 2A. I believe we will see intermediate scrutiny for the time being.

ETA: I am NOT suggesting I accept intermediate scrutiny nor that I think it should be the level given, but I am trying to be realistic on what we will see out of this court. I am also pointing out that we always need to show harm because that will be the way to prove the infringement. Lastly, I am not suggesting that we should sit idly by with out thumbs up our asses as we get porked. I am just trying to set realistic expectations that licensing is here to stay. What we can hope for is it becomes sane and fair.

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?

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

If they have no option of appealing, which I suspect most don't, then they are victims of the gun control era. They can request pardons and/or restoration of their rights. In most states, this would require the governor or the president of the US. In MA we have the FRB and so you have some possibility of seeing justice for those afflicted, but the rules for restoration are such at this moment that the FRB will turn those people away.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

This is indeed true, however, even DC has not gone to the length of denying licenses to persons with clean records who are deemed "unsuitable" because they were found not guilty of a charge; subject to an expired restraining order; exercised their right to remain silent; etc. The "you can't own a gun if we don't like you" is one item that could logically fall in a post McDonald/Heller world.

A relevant case needs to focus on a single concept: A protected right cannot be taken away without due process subject to a similar standard used for any deprivation of a constitutional right.

 

[kingfisher]

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.

Rob, could you (or someone else who knows for sure) explain the current status of the bolded portion in your quote? If someone were to do what is normally recommended in these circumstances and say to the police officer, "I'll cooperate fully, but first I'd like to speak to my attorney," that is grounds for revoking a LTC in MA?

Is that only for someone who is the subject of a criminal investigation? What about if pulled over on the side of the road in a traffic stop? Do you know if people routinely get jammed up this way? Please explain.

It's not cool if you'd have to give up your right to remain silent in order to not lose your license!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

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.

You are probably correct in terms of possession and you're talking about a 14th amendment equal protection argument. It will be much more difficult to have 351 different standards and requirements just to possess a handgun. However, as Rob Boudrie pointed out, a little more work will have to be done to have this equal protection thing apply to a restricted vs. unrestricted LTC - 'bear' part of keep and bear. Skyes may be the key determiner here as it brings up the equal protection argument in the context of people who have CCW permits but cannot get the renewed upon moving to a different city within the state that does not issue.

 

[jar]

Rob, could you (or someone else who knows for sure) explain the current status of the bolded portion in your quote? If someone were to do what is normally recommended in these circumstances and say to the police officer, "I'll cooperate fully, but first I'd like to speak to my attorney," that is grounds for revoking a LTC in MA?

Currently a chief can revoke a license for any reason or no reason.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Rob, could you (or someone else who knows for sure) explain the current status of the bolded portion in your quote? If someone were to do what is normally recommended in these circumstances and say to the police officer, "I'll cooperate fully, but first I'd like to speak to my attorney," that is grounds for revoking a LTC in MA?

Is that only for someone who is the subject of a criminal investigation? What about if pulled over on the side of the road in a traffic stop? Do you know if people routinely get jammed up this way? Please explain.

It's not cool if you'd have to give up your right to remain silent in order to not lose your license!

Your LTC can be revoked for this or any other reason, it's s discretionary license. But I'll let Rob explain (again, or maybe you can search for it) the finer point of Godfrey vs. Chief of Police of Wellesley.

 

[Dench]

Currently a chief can revoke a license for any reason or no reason.

Well thats what we get when we elect good guys like this to office in MA:

Oh, wait.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, could you (or someone else who knows for sure) explain the current status of the bolded portion in your quote? If someone were to do what is normally recommended in these circumstances and say to the police officer, "I'll cooperate fully, but first I'd like to speak to my attorney," that is grounds for revoking a LTC in MA?

The answer is unfortunately "yes".

Godfrey v. Chief of Police of Wellesley, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 42, 616 N.E.2d 485 (1993)

...."Although Godfrey might have been well within his rights in declining to answer, and although he might be entitled to some remedy upon proof of his claim that the revocation was "in retaliation" for his assertion of his rights, cf. Rzeznik v. Chief of Police of Southampton, 374 Mass. 475, 484-486, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978), that remedy is not reinstatement of his firearms license. The record shows that Godfrey did not sustain his burden of showing that the chief's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

 

[kingfisher]

Thanks! I'll look it up.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I forgot to post the link: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/godfrey_v_chief.txt

 

[cb1]

IANAL and I am certainly not as up to date on these court cases as I used to or should be, but if SCOTUS rules that the individual's right to own firearms for self defense is incorporated against the states then, barring a constitutional amendment, doesn't that rule out any future attempts (no matter how unlikely) to implement a complete gun ban? or even "just" a ban on handguns? If so, this wouldn't exactly be a small victory. We may have to live with discretionary licensing and other "reasonable" restrictions for the foreseeable future, but wouldn't things like katrina style confiscations would be much harder for the antis to justify?

 

[terraformer]

IANAL and I am certainly not as up to date on these court cases as I used to or should be, but if SCOTUS rules that the individual's right to own firearms for self defense is incorporated against the states then, barring a constitutional amendment, doesn't that rule out any future attempts (no matter how unlikely) to implement a complete gun ban? or even "just" a ban on handguns? If so, this wouldn't exactly be a small victory. We may have to live with discretionary licensing and other "reasonable" restrictions for the foreseeable future, but wouldn't things like katrina style confiscations would be much harder for the antis to justify?

Welcome to 2008. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Yes, that was the point of heller. Gun bans are bad, and now impossible.

 

[LoginName]

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

That's no longer the case.

They've been allowing semi-autos to be registered for some time now using California's Maryland's and MA's approved firearms rosters as a model... DC residents are actually better off than us as to what handguns are permitted.

Recent Regulatory Changes
On June 17, 2009, the Metropolitan Police Department issued emergency and proposed rulemaking expanding the types of handguns that can be legally registered in the District of Columbia. The emergency and proposed regulations will allow a greater variety of handguns to be registered in the District of Columbia. To protect residents from unsafe handguns that are more prone to accidental discharge, lack safety devices, and may be prone to firing when dropped, the Council of the District of Columbia identified the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (also known as the California Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe) as a source list for safer handguns. Handguns on the roster have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and are certified for sale in California by the California Department of Justice. The Chief of Police is authorized to periodically revise, by rule, the roster of handguns permissible for sale.

The regulations will establish a District Roster of Handguns Not Determined to be Unsafe that will include the California list and handguns that are on the safe gun rosters of Maryland and Massachusetts. These regulations will allow for handguns with superficial differences from handguns on the roster – such as color or grip material – to be registered. The regulations will also allow for handguns that are removed from the California list for administrative reasons to remain on the District list. The Chief will also be issuing new regulations shortly dealing with the registration of additional revolvers not yet included on the District’s Roster

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,|.asp

 

[cb1]

Welcome to 2008. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Yes, that was the point of heller. Gun bans are bad, and now impossible.

In DC. Which does nothing for the rest of us. That may have seemed like a dumb question, but with so many people preoccupied with what comes next, I thought I must have been missing something. McDonald going in our favor will be huge but it doesn't seem like many people realize that.

 

[terraformer]

In DC. Which does nothing for the rest of us. That may have seemed like a dumb question, but with so many people preoccupied with what comes next, I thought I must have been missing something. McDonald going in our favor will be huge but it doesn't seem like many people realize that.

It wasn't a dumb question, I was just having fun. But it is also a forgone conclusion that McDonald will yield a result of incorporation. How is the more interesting question, but it was forgone it had to be incorporated.

 

[TheRoland]

That's no longer the case.

They've been allowing semi-autos to be registered for some time now using California's Maryland's and MA's approved firearms rosters as a model... DC residents are actually better off than us as to what handguns are permitted.



http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,|.asp

I had thought they were still banned under a ridiculous assault-weapons-ban. My mistake!

 

[LoginName]

I had thought they were still banned under a ridiculous assault-weapons-ban. My mistake!

It was more ridiculous than that... previously, under DC's bullshit ban, semi-auto handguns were defined as "machine guns".

 

[seanc]

I think a bigger question is. Ok, Heller, goes through. McDonald goes through. The states that don't like it, just ignore it. At this point, what really is the down side of ignoring the SCOTUS for the states?

 

[upStomp]

I think a bigger question is. Ok, Heller, goes through. McDonald goes through. The states that don't like it, just ignore it. At this point, what really is the down side of ignoring the SCOTUS for the states?

There really isn't one, other than having to tie up the State's court resources on 2A issues that could otherwise be looking for other rights to infringe on.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I think a bigger question is. Ok, Heller, goes through. McDonald goes through. The states that don't like it, just ignore it. At this point, what really is the down side of ignoring the SCOTUS for the states?

That is what I predict MA will do and very effectively.

It'll take a "right case" and a ton of money to get the SCOTUS decision to be forced down MA's DAs and AG's throats. Oh and this will likely take 3-5 years to happen, so they get to continue to spit in our eyes for that long too.

 

[seanc]

That is what I predict MA will do and very effectively.

It'll take a "right case" and a ton of money to get the SCOTUS decision to be forced down MA's DAs and AG's throats. Oh and this will likely take 3-5 years to happen, so they get to continue to spit in our eyes for that long too.

In a nutshell.. The SCOTUS is basically as irrelevant as the Constitution itself at this point. If the states or the feds disagree, they are free to ignore and/ or circumvent as desired. One "right thinking" activist judge on the local circuit is all that is needed to provide validity and cover.

It all comes down to "reasonable" "common sense"..

 

[dfranke]

Bump.

 

[Horrible]

So sick of having my civil rights attacked in this state.

I was recently over in the UK. That trip just reminded me of how we need to continue to this fight. Today it is one gun a month, who knows what tomorrow will bring.

If this decision goes in our favor tomorrow, at least it (combined with Heller) will provide some momentum for RKBA.

 

[sig2009]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Gun Rights Orgs Predict Second Amendment Incorporation

Township of Washington, NJ – June 25, 2010 – The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense has once again applied a unique analysis tool to predict the outcome of the McDonald v. Chicago case currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Using what’s known as the KJ Analysis, the NJCSD concluded that the justices will find in favor of McDonald and that the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.

KJ is a method which analyzes reactions to a product, service or statement, compiles the voices, and organizes them into a hierarchy to understand key issues or needs. In this particular case the NJCSD team organized the Justice's statements culled from the transcript of this important Supreme Court Case.

“I was thrilled to be asked by the NJCSD to once again contribute on this key SCOTUS case, as we did in Heller v. DC. I am confident that the KJ technique has yielded a good approximation of the key issues we will see decided very soon,” said Joe Ficalora, who led the analysis team. “This is an exciting time for me to watch as our trampled self-defense rights in NJ will eventually be restored because of Supreme Court cases like McDonald v. Chicago.”

The questions presented to the Court were whether the Second Amendment applies to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states, and whether the handgun ban, and other aspects of gun registration regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, in Chicago, Illinois are unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has already seen Washington DC thumb their noses at the Heller decision, so we hope they’ll have the wisdom to recognize what our Founders knew,” said Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, Executive Director of the NJCSD. “They knew that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is fundamental not only to personal protection but to ward off the tyrannical forms of government and encroachments the likes of which we’ve already seen from this administration and in New Jersey.”

Skip Coryell, founder of the Second Amendment March, also considered the upcoming decision. “There is wide speculation about what level of ‘scrutiny’ the court will use to apply our 2nd Amendment right. Justices Scalia and Roberts seem to recognize that ‘reasonable’ regulations can give way too much wiggle room where some states or municipalities can essentially regulate the right out of existence, such as in New Jersey.”

”Americans across the country anxiously await the results of this case. We’re hoping that the Justices recognize our fundamental rights and no longer allow states or localities to trample our freedoms by permitting our safety or sportsmanship to be incremented or regulated into oblivion. Either way, it’s going to be an interesting July 4th holiday this year.” Said NJCSD President Robert Kreisler.

The NJCSD and Second Amendment March are not-for profit Second Amendment advocacy organizations. They can be found on the internet respectively at njcsd.org and secondamendmentmarch.org.

Contact:

Robert Kreisler
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense
[email protected] This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
POB 1412
Washington Twp. NJ 07676
877-890-5460

Liz Foley
Second Amendment March
[email protected] This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
POB 232
Delton, MI 49046

 

[dfranke]

KJ analysis for predicting supreme court decisions? What utter bunk.

 

[mikem317]

Anybody know what the plaintiffs are asking for, in terms of relief? Heller didn't address concealed carry. Anybody know if McDonald will? Or is this basically replicating Heller, which allowed the home use of certain classes of handguns in a federal enclave to the states?

 

[dfranke]

Anybody know what the plaintiffs are asking for, in terms of relief?

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/faqs/#laws-challenging

 

[terraformer]

FYI: SCotus blog is reporting that they think orders will run into late monday and into Tuesday. That is not the same as opinions, but they think a private session will occur late in the day Monday. If so, then there is a possibility that some opinions could be delayed, though not likely. Point being, the court is not running out on recess monday @ 11 AM. And with ginsburg's husband passing away today, that could also cause timing issues.