Handgun ban? What about Heller/McDonald?

Following Tuesday's presidential debate, Obama mentioned his support for a renewed AWB and perhaps regulation of (cheap) handguns. Setting aside for the moment the constitutionality of any AWB, I thought the possibility of a ban on handguns was already barred by the Heller and McDonald decisions? That a complete ban on an entire class of weapon "in common use" and suitable for self defense was unconstitutional. The court agreed that handguns fall under that classification. Am I missing something here?

If he gets more judges in, they can rerule on that decision, probably.

Obama is stumping for votes. I don't believe he cares about the constitution. All he cares about is getting his base excited. It isn't as if politicians of both parties haven't passed unconstitutional laws before.

Back to the OP...you are 100% right. And the Supreme Court is unwilling to revisit old decisions. It sets a precedent for revisiting other old decisions.

Socialists I tell you!!!!! Haveing their fingers where they dont belong.

The Supreme Court is highly disinclined to over-rule itself. They are the last aribiters of these decisions and if they start over-ruling themselves, they cease to be relevant. Regardless of their personal belief, their construction view of the constitution, or whatever political constituentcy they may or may not be presumed to represent, the number one thing the SCOTUS wants and needs to do (and rightly so), is remain relevant. Overturning anything is taken more than seriously, it will be taken gravely. I think overturning Heller and McDonald would not pass that "sufficient gravity" test.

It was fascinating to me that President Obama noted that in Chicago, very few crimes involving guns are committed with "assault" weapons, but that most are being committed with "cheap handguns."

I thought it was illegal to carry a handgun in Illinois?

Just the opposite. In Heller the Court said that banning entire types of guns may be legal. However that issue will have to be decided in a later Court case as it is outside the scope of Heller.

Heller is not as big of victory for gun owners as the NRA and other pro-gun organizations would have you believe. The High Court has left the door open for more cases involving gun control.

That's probably true enough. What Heller really did was confirm that Americans do indeed have the right to defend themselves with guns and they do have the right to defend themselves with guns that are commonly used today. So the oft repeated statement that "the founding fathers only had muzzle loaders" nonsense was wiped out. AND the idea that a handgun was in some way not "as protected" or the right to one "more infringeable" if you will, was also knocked out. Handguns are now, and have been since about 1875, the most common self defense weapon.

So Heller has, more or less, said you can't ban handguns, you can't ban rifles...you can't ban them as a sweeping move and you can't ban common firearms...from what I can read from Scalia's write-up.

But indeed, it by no means place regulation of firearms off limits. It was a victory if not a complete one.

That a complete ban on an entire class of weapon "in common use" and suitable for self defense was unconstitutional. The court agreed that handguns fall under that classification. Am I missing something here?

According to Miller firearms useful to the militia are explicitly covered by the 2nd Amendment, too. The issue weapon of our armed forces is the M-4 Carbine.

Now go try to buy one! :cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead::fire:

Obama is stumping for votes.

Seriously? Those are some huge blinders you have on there.

Following Tuesday's presidential debate, Obama mentioned his support for a renewed AWB and perhaps regulation of (cheap) handguns.

The Heller decision does not prevent the regulation of firearms. It's an awfully big leap to think he wishes to ban handguns. If anything he would most likely me seek additional regulation. Realistically neither candidate is going to touch the issue as it is just too damaging politically. Even if Obama wanted to he would have a hard time getting senators or reps to vote for something that could easily cost them their seat.

As the others said, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will reverse itself.

On the other hand, should the composition of the Court be altered, we would likely see the Court narrow the scope of the prior rulings and/or broadly construe the language allowing for regulations and restrictions.

Additionally, a liberal majority would almost certainly apply a more deferential standard of review when evaluating gun laws in the future.

The Heller decision had no effect on the existing bans on "Saturday night specials", e.g. "cheap handguns".

Who gets to decide what is a cheap hand gun? Will it be based on MSRP, or possibly the grade and quality of the metal?

And wouldn't banning "cheap" (inexpensive) handguns be another Jim Crow law, pricing guns out of the realm of affordability to the poor? I guess they don't need to defend themselves?

Scalia's reasoning in Heller was:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

2. The right protects the possession and use of firearms that are commonly owned for lawful purposes.

3. Handguns are a class of firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes.

4. A ban on all handguns therefore infringes the protected right.

You can substitute AR15 for handgun and get the same result. The AWB is dead, stiff, and stinkin'.

The Supreme Court will not revisit Heller and McDonald. They are settled law. Only in very glaringly wrong cases will the Supreme Court reverse itself. For example, the Slaughter-House case is very widely regarded as having been wrongly decided, but it will probably never be revisited. Some sitting Justices have opined that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided too, but it won't be revisited either.

Scalia wrote an outstandingly good opinion. You can find a lot of people who don't like it, but it's hard to find people who can show that he was wrong.

It will take another couple of decades of litigation for the full effects of Heller and McDonald to be seen. By the time it all unfolds, I expect that the worst of our gun laws will go away. Things like the Illinois FOID will be just bad memories, but form 4473 will live on.

Do not underestimate the importance of these two decisions.

Who gets to decide what is a cheap hand gun? Will it be based on MSRP, or possibly the grade and quality of the metal?


IIRC, size and metal were some of the attributes used to ban "Saturday night specials", and whether or not they were imported. I think imports with low melting points (e.g. zinc or pot metal castings) and/or short barrels were prohibited. Also adjustable sights were required.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#History_of_regulation_attempts
for more information.

Ken

That would put companies like Hi Point out of business (Zamak slides), as well as putting a serious hurt on Heritage (also Zamak in their rough rider revolvers). I still cry foul, since sometimes a $150 gun is all someone can afford.
Banning "cheap" handguns will ban most inexpensive hand guns, which is an early step into pricing gun ownership into elitism.

Know how to make a cheap handgun not cheap anymore?

Tax it.

Just saying.

Keep your (metaphorical!) powder dry, folks. That's the next big thing....

With good reason, people assume that the government can effectively regulate firearms by outlawing inexpensive handguns, taxing inexpensive handguns, or taxing ammunition.

But none of those plans are going to see the light of day. Period. Quit stewing.

If the government wants to reduce cigarette use, they can apply high taxes. They can do that, and they have. But there is no constitutional right to cigarettes. There is a constitutional right to firearms. In the case of a guaranteed basic right, they can levy modest taxes. They cannot levy punitive or prohibitive taxes. Any tax scheme that has the obvious intent of discouraging possession of firearms is unconstitutional without question.

Ammunition falls under the same protection as firearms. All things necessary to a right are secured by the right. Firearms are useless without ammunition, so ammunition is as protected as firearms are.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to travel within the country. That's settled law. So I wonder how they feel about confiscatory fuel taxes.....

I think imports with low melting points (e.g. zinc or pot metal castings) and/or short barrels were prohibited. Also adjustable sights were required.

That would put companies like Hi Point out of business (Zamak slides), as well as putting a serious hurt on Heritage (also Zamak in their rough rider revolvers). I still cry foul, since sometimes a $150 gun is all someone can afford.

I would think it could also put every poly handgun into that "melting point" definition as the gun would be rendered useless.

That would put companies like Hi Point out of business (Zamak slides), as well as putting a serious hurt on Heritage (also Zamak in their rough rider revolvers). I still cry foul, since sometimes a $150 gun is all someone can afford.
Banning "cheap" handguns will ban most inexpensive hand guns, which is an early step into pricing gun ownership into elitism.

Originally posted by: USAF_Vet

Technically, most guns or anything to do with shooting is already priced into elitism. Think about it, "How many people can afford a decent gun, enough ammo, enough time, range membership dues/fees, etc. to actually be able to use a gun with any amount of proficiency?" This requires practice and practice cost money. There is nothing about gun ownership, shooting, etc. that is cheap. This board may be an exception. Honestly, I can just barely afford it myself and if my wife knew how much this stuff cost then she would have a duck fit. Granted you don't have to have a $6000 rifle either but you get my point. I am starting to think that this may be one of many waves to price it out for the majority. However, I also believe this would be stupid move on their part. To regulate the arms industry any more than it already is in any shape or form would be detrimental to the economy. In fact, it is one of the only industries that has made gains all of these years and is still doing well. If they ever got to the point of banning guns completely then our unemployment rate would be a lot more staggering than it already is. They would be wise not to mess with this industry.

Any tax scheme that has the obvious intent of discouraging possession of firearms is unconstitutional without question.

Ammunition falls under the same protection as firearms. All things necessary to a right are secured by the right. Firearms are useless without ammunition, so ammunition is as protected as firearms are.

Can you please provide a citation for these opinions?

I would think it could also put every poly handgun into that "melting point" definition as the gun would be rendered useless.

If you read the wikipedia reference I gave, it goes into the poly guns and how it was changed to accommodate them, how Glock had to put adjustable sights onto gun to bring them into the country and then remove them and put on fixed sights once they were imported, etc.

Gun control advocates who have no respect for the plain language of a Constitutional Amendment (trying to twist "right of the people to keep and bear arms" into the "power or authority of the state") will treat Supreme Court rulings that go against their cherished obsession with contempt.

Each side of the political spectrum wants the Court to reverse fairly recent decisions. What else is new. The Dems want to put their hand on your holster and the GOP wants to put their nose in your crouch.

I sincerely doubt given current polling on gun control that we would see blanket bans on EBRS or handguns.

BTW - if they renewed the old AWB, that didn't stop folks in states that didn't have stricter laws from owning ARs and AK pattern guns. It did influence magazine availability and prices. That's why the criminological literature demonstrated the AWB was a flop for crime control.

So the antis would have to push for a stricter ban and confiscation. No chance of that if you see the attitude polls currently on the matter. It wasn't like that back in the 80's and 90's. Even if Barry gets re-elected, the pressure not to screw up 2016 would prevent a new AWB.

It's not a stretch at all to say he WANTS to. It's a stretch to say he DOESN'T want to. Do not mistake a lack or opportunity for a lack of desire.

They are much more likely to try to implement state-level restrictions and try to argue that they are within the limitations set in Heller, and hope that no court will send it all the way up.

Originally Posted by denton
Any tax scheme that has the obvious intent of discouraging possession of firearms is unconstitutional without question.

Originally Posted by denton
Ammunition falls under the same protection as firearms. All things necessary to a right are secured by the right. Firearms are useless without ammunition, so ammunition is as protected as firearms are.

Can you please provide a citation for these opinions?
Precedent is Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a heavy tax on printer's ink violated the First Amendment freedom of the press.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_v_MN_Commisioner_of_Revenue
http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/575/case.html

To say otherwise would mean that a state or the Feds could outlaw the exercise of pretty much *any* protected right via legislation that attacked the items necessary to exercise the right.

Technically, most guns or anything to do with shooting is already priced into elitism. Think about it, "How many people can afford a decent gun, enough ammo, enough time, range membership dues/fees, etc. to actually be able to use a gun with any amount of proficiency?" This requires practice and practice cost money. There is nothing about gun ownership, shooting, etc. that is cheap. This board may be an exception.
Well, there are levels of involvement. Someone on a very limited income who purchases a $100-$150 pistol and a box of FMJ, and doesn't have the money for live-fire practice, is certainly going to be less skilled in extremis than someone who practices regularly, and their gun may be less reliable or accurate or concealable than the person with a $500 pistol. But the person with the $100 gun and a box of ammo is still light years ahead of the person who owns no gun at all.

My ex-wife's first gun was a Phoenix Arms Raven .25 ACP that she purchased for $75, literally all we could afford. Yes, it was only a clunky little .25 that couldn't be carried with a round in the chamber, held only 6 or 7 rounds, was slow to reload, and the ergonomics weren't great. But from a defensive standpoint, it was a darn sight better than nothing. She practiced with it, got good with it, and eventually moved up to a 9mm Glock and a CHL, but the Raven was the first run on that ladder.

A $200 tax in 1934 dollars has been 'acceptable' to SCOTUS.

Depending which inflation calculator you believe, that is from $3250 to 3500 in today's dollars.

No matter who is next appointed to the Supreme Court or who "wins" the White House, it might be best to buy a preferred handgun (rifle, ammo etc) within the next year or so before the US dollar loses more value.

If you can afford to buy a handgun you might need (for me a very First handgun), then we must hope that ammo prices don't escalate much.
We can analyze every factor regarding ammo/guns, speculate on the future US Small Arms Treaty etc influence, but if you can afford to buy what you want and need, why postpone the purchase or trade very long?
One more tragedy involving a psycho in the worst possible location could upset the political equilibrium.

They're not going to reverse or retry Heller. They can't. To do so would be double jeopardy. It would also be highly unlikely that it would be overturned in our lifetime.

Thank you, benEzra for posting that.

The same logic was used to get rid of poll taxes and voting literacy tests which are both unconstitutional. Voting is a basic civil right, like RKBA. Prohibitive taxes are no more constitutional for one than for the other.

Well being a FORMER Chicagoan, it isn't law abiding people that do the crimes. It is gangs. I am sure there are SOME people who own handguns legally that commit rimes, no doubt. A vast majority of crimes reported are by gang members. If CCW permits were issued, innocents wouldn't CONSTANTLY be mugged or killed as a result of crimes involving handguns.

Keep your (metaphorical!) powder dry, folks. That's the next big thing....

They have already talked about the lead bullet ban again. Others have expressed that it should be illegal to send powder through the mail. Don't even get me started on primers.

It would not surprise me if the the next target of the radical antigun nuts isn't to limit ammunition. They sort of set the stage with Colorado. I personally started keeping a record of how much ammunition I shoot and reload so I could tell people it is pretty normal to have that much around. I have had a few friends who have asked why anyone would need 3000 rounds of anything. I told them that I fired 4000 rounds of various calibers this summer alone :D.

I have had a few friends who have asked why anyone would need 3000 rounds of anything.

My retort to people who ask this is "do you believe anybody can actually carry and use 3000 rounds at any one time?" Realistically the most one would likely carry on their person is 300 rounds of 5.56 so unless one believes nobody should be allowed to own that amount it doesn't matter if somebody buys or has 3000 rounds.

Keep in mind that Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsberg, and others, when ruling on McDonald, wrote as if Heller had never been decided. Their opinion in McDonald tried to re-argue Heller and over again, and they concluded that McDonald had no right to a gun in his home because no one has an individual right to own a gun... a question the had supposedly been settled just a few years earlier in Heller.

- - - Yoda

The Heller decision does not apply to the individual states. The issue of incorporation was decided in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

Good luck with a handgun ban.

For all of those stating the court does not reverse itself there have been several cases. One was Hepburn v. Griswold that outlawed greenbacks and said only gold and silver were legal tender just like it says in the constution. In less than a year the Republicans packed the court since they would not allow Johnson to put new justices on the court and let Grant appoint former railroad lawyers. This lead to Knox v. Lee that let congress issue paper money just a year after it was deemed unconstutional.

Don't think for an instant they wont find a loophole or more specific question that would allow them to ban something or just flat out decide the last court was wrong.