SCOTUS - Chicago

[NextExit]

I wonder how Sotomayor will rule?

I used to live in Illinois.(not Chicago ) Their gun laws are definitely but I don't think they're as bad as NY.

[Guest GunTroll]

So..........just playing the devils advocate a bit. Is there any unseen negatives in a pro 2nd ruling on this?

I'm wondering what affects a pro 2nd ruling would have on TN firearm freedom act. Or MT's law for that matter. Would this help or hurt these state level laws?

[Oh Shoot]

So..........just playing the devils advocate a bit. Is there any unseen negatives in a pro 2nd ruling on this?

I'm wondering what affects a pro 2nd ruling would have on TN firearm freedom act. Or MT's law for that matter. Would this help or hurt these state level laws?

I can't see any relationship at all.

- OS

[Guest GunTroll]

I can't either but some are talking as if it would. Sort of a 10th vs. 2nd scenario. I don't know about that though.......

[Guest Smitty]

I hope the court makes the right decision in favor the the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. I am confident they will.

[Guest jackdm3]

This is the NPR 30 minute show that was talked about. It should play for about a week.

NPR Media Player

[JayC]

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated by SCOTUS, it will have far reaching impacts...

Most likely it means that various states assault weapon bans will be ruled unconstitutional, as well as possibly the 1986 machine gun ban.

Incorporation of the 2A is a big deal.

[Guest jackdm3]

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated by SCOTUS, it will have far reaching impacts...

Most likely it means that various states assault weapon bans will be ruled unconstitutional, as well as possibly the 1986 machine gun ban.

Incorporation of the 2A is a big deal.

I'm very glad to see someone echoing my sentiments on a recent closed thread regarding overturning the 1986 ruling. Nothing is set in stone and permanent, just as the 10-round mag was overturned. I don't expect them to do it this time, but it could happen.

[macville]

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated by SCOTUS, it will have far reaching impacts...

Most likely it means that various states assault weapon bans will be ruled unconstitutional, as well as possibly the 1986 machine gun ban.

Incorporation of the 2A is a big deal.

But nothing will happen about that unless someone sues and then the court will have to choose to hear the case. Effectively, they can keep the unconstitutional ban in place simply by choosing to not hear the case (which I find highly offensive to our founding fathers ideas because they wanted a country where every man had a chance to be heard, and the court doesn't really follow that idea.)

Here's the thing...they have said that that there should still be restrictions on the 2d as far as how guns are sold/registered (which I guess is similar to the 1st amendment and the 7 words you can't say on TV), but why keep the new machine gun ban WHEN the current system of a tax stamp seems to work fairly well. Are the afraid that if it goes away that too many machine guns will get into homes and then get stolen and out on the street (which could be a concern..but how many machine guns are currently in private hands?) Personally, I rather see a a criminal with a machine gun than a semi-auto or revolver. Why? Simply put, they are much harder to control (aka: less likely to hit a target because they will stray off it very quickly) and tend to run out of ammo quickly. Maybe I am crazy about that.

The interesting thing is that supposedly it's easy to get full auto guns on the black market....but when was the last time you heard of a crime going down with machine guns here in the US? The last one I can think of, which I'm not even sure about, was that bank robbery and shoot out in LA in the late 90's-but it seems like they may have not had machine guns, just body armor and armor piercing ammo.

Matthew

[TMMT]

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated by SCOTUS, it will have far reaching impacts...

Most likely it means that various states assault weapon bans will be ruled unconstitutional, as well as possibly the 1986 machine gun ban.

Incorporation of the 2A is a big deal.

Actually the 86 law is more of an import ban and production ban, on machine guns manufactured after 1986. The controlling law here is the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The 1986 law had some good issues in it , it addressed the abuses noted in a 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report on federal violations of previous laws and 2 amendment issues.

It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.

So it had some good things.

[Oh Shoot]

... allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service ...

News to me, and to every other vendor that ships ammunition.

I admit those Priority flat rate boxes would sure be handy for it, but ammunition just is NOT allowed through USPS.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I certainly hope it would do something to the 34,68,86 acts. The only known use in a crime of a machine gun in the last 50 years or

so, was by a police officer. I'll try to find a link and post what I read. Those acts are the most ridiculous laws on the books. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if it took the BATFE and put them out

of business. I doubt it would happen, but you never know.

[Guest Jamie]

I doubt it would happen, but you never know.

Just 20 years ago, I would never have imagined we'd get this far.

J.

[Mike.357]

I predict they will strike down Chicago's handgun ban, but Chicago will ignore it.

The ban will continue on.

Best case scenario for those in Chicago is that there will only be a handful of hoops to jump through to legally possess that handgun. Of course with those hoops will come lots of expense and headache. Which will stop most people from legally possessing that handgun.

The man always wants to keep his foot on our neck.

[LagerHead]

So..........just playing the devils advocate a bit. Is there any unseen negatives in a pro 2nd ruling on this?

I'm wondering what affects a pro 2nd ruling would have on TN firearm freedom act. Or MT's law for that matter. Would this help or hurt these state level laws?

I can't see any relationship at all.

- OS

Me either. If I recall correctly, the federal government claims jurisdiction over these matter via interstate commerce, which is of course ridiculous. I think the firearms freedom thing will have to play itself out separately.

[I_Like_Pie]

No matter how one views this case...there is no denying that Alan Gura is wonderbread.

Man - this guy is a hero of mine

[eapking]

the SCOTUS needs to examine what the right to "bear" means because that would remove far more restrictions than anything else. I don't understand where they get this "reasonable restrictions" for the states from. Nothing in the 2d says anything about restrictions...you know that whole, shall not be "infringed"?

Matthew

Yep, this is where they will fall short. They will reaffirm Heller which leaves out the "bear arms" part. You can own one (keep), but it will be left up to the locales to decide carry (bear). I fail to see why they think this part of the 2A is debatable? It says "keep and bear arms".

But it is better than losing the whole argument. Then we're really screwed.

[Guest Revelator]

Keep in mind that this case is as much about the 14th amendment as it is the 2nd. Whereas Heller focused on the language of the 2nd amendment, most of this case centered around two clauses of the 14th amendment. The issue is, do either of those clauses allow the 2nd amendment to be applied to the states? That's something the High Court had never decided and never been asked to decide. It appears that, based on what was said at arguments, they are leaning toward incorporation through one of those clauses. The other clause they're not too fond of. A bunch of cases from a long time ago kind of closed the door on that one, and the Court is not about to overturn itself. But if they go the incorporation route through the due process clause, I would think they'd naturally have to follow precedent and strike down the Chicago law.

This case is as much about limitations of states rights as it is about guns. That is, states have to respect the Bill of Rights just like Washington does. Chicago may lose this case, but I don't see too many other gun laws being stricken. For instance, restrictions on carry permits or high-capacity magazines. Does anyone really think the US Supreme Court is going to rule that you have a constitutional right to a 30-round magazine?

Edited March 4, 2010 by P. Stegall

[TMMT]

Yep, this is where they will fall short. They will reaffirm Heller which leaves out the "bear arms" part. You can own one (keep), but it will be left up to the locales to decide carry (bear). I fail to see why they think this part of the 2A is debatable? It says "keep and bear arms".

But it is better than losing the whole argument. Then we're really screwed.

That is indeed an interesting analysis but brings us back to the question of language and full incorporation.

Once the court begins to "adopt" a direct meaning for language interpretation, its not out of the question to ask why, if the court sees meaning in "to keep", why it will not move just three more words into the Amendment and recognize "and bear arms".

Then of course we have the crystal clear ending "shall not be infringed".

The definition of "The People" has already been addressed by the Court many, many times over. And for the purpose of the BoR and its was accepted the meaning of "The People" is defined as anyone able to cast a ballot to reelect the House of Representatives every two years. Which I am good with that definition, which is basically any US Citizen, not convicted of any felonies.

The Militia argument (Being the National Guard) is moot for two reasons, First there is tons of journal as well as legal writings on the subject from not only before the Second Continental Congress but the First CC too... that clearly define the Militia as any abled bodied male, which at the time were the only ones who could vote (refer back to the accepted definition of "The People" for modern standards).

Second The National Guard did not exist until Congress created it in 1903 and further clarified its existence and role in 1916 by amending Title 10 of the US Code.

Once they begin strip mining the Amendment and defining the individual words and language, we win the entire argument, purpose, meaning, definition and all.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

It is late and I just quickly scanned the thread....if I missed this I aplolgize.

It is the full text of the actual arguments that were heard before SCOTUS in this case.

It seems it only took a tad over an hour......

Now we wait.....

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/McDonaldvChicagooral.pdf

[Guest rystine]

Keep in mind that this case is as much about the 14th amendment as it is the 2nd. Whereas Heller focused on the language of the 2nd amendment, most of this case centered around two clauses of the 14th amendment. The issue is, do either of those clauses allow the 2nd amendment to be applied to the states? That's something the High Court had never decided and never been asked to decide. It appears that, based on what was said at arguments, they are leaning toward incorporation through one of those clauses. The other clause they're not too fond of. A bunch of cases from a long time ago kind of closed the door on that one, and the Court is not about to overturn itself. But if they go the incorporation route through the due process clause, I would think they'd naturally have to follow precedent and strike down the Chicago law.

This case is as much about limitations of states rights as it is about guns. That is, states have to respect the Bill of Rights just like Washington does. Chicago may lose this case, but I don't see too many other gun laws being stricken. For instance, restrictions on carry permits or high-capacity magazines. Does anyone really think the US Supreme Court is going to rule that you have a constitutional right to a 30-round magazine?

+1000

I'm not so convinced this is a good thing. As positive as it is for the 2nd Amendment, it is 10 times worse for the 10th.

[JayC]

The 1986 law basically banned importing or registration of any new fully automatic weapons... That is a ban plain and simple... Washington DC had a process to permit weapons to be registered, it just refused to register any weapons, which was the main point of the lawsuit in Heler.

It's an arm which is in common use in military's around the world, yet we're unable to purchase new ones... How does that jive with the right ot keep and bear arms?

Yes it will hurt some collectors who have spent a lot of money snagging pre-ban weapons, but the rest of us will be able to purchase a fully auto M4 for less than $2,000 if the ban were to be ruled unconstitutional as it should.

Actually the 86 law is more of an import ban and production ban, on machine guns manufactured after 1986. The controlling law here is the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The 1986 law had some good issues in it , it addressed the abuses noted in a 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report on federal violations of previous laws and 2 amendment issues.

It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.

So it had some good things.

[Guest Jamie]

...the rest of us will be able to purchase a fully auto M4 for less than $2,000 if the ban were to be ruled unconstitutional as it should.

Somehow I think SCOUTS would rather gut themselves with a rusty butter knife than let that happen. :-\

J.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the argument ends up defining the 2nd amendment, we should be able to purchase any weapon. I'm not holding my breath, but it should include whacking the laws that allow the BATFE to abuse our rights. The only job the BATFE should be concerned with is the guns that are in the hands of criminals. I don't see why this is hard to understand. NFA laws are just as unconstitutional as Chicago's ban, or magazine restrictions. The length of a barrel, silencer, or automatic weapon are just evolvements in technology. Technology shouldn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment. This isn't about hunting, but it is about tyranny, just like banning handguns in certain locales.

[Guest Jamie]

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

I've never thought "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was complicated or difficult to understand either, but we've all seen how that's gone.

J.