The next SCOTUS case?

The authors of the 2A didn't say that we have a RKBA only in our homes. What about our horses? Fast forward; what about our cars?

Here in CA, unlike DC, we can have loaded and ready firearms in our homes and businesses, but without a ccw, we must unload them and put them in a locked case to drive across town. I don't think the framers restricted where we can KBA's.

the Cato institute has already said that they are going after the Sullivan Act in NYC next

Click to expand...

Source? I couldn't find one at www.cato.org.

In the bigger picture, it would be best to get a series of decisions limiting the ability of sate and local governments to do total bans. As noted, NY and Chicago are reasonably easy targets. I would expect the initial case to fail on the local level, and perhaps through the lower appellate courts, with the final victory coming at the SCOTUS level. Once the lower appellate courts have seen their decisions overturned, they will then fall in line.

Once the lower appellate courts have come to understand that there is a right to arms, the time will have come to attack the full auto ban contained in Section 922(o). Sam Adams is right in his statement that this is virtually identical to the DC ban. As he noted the second amendment is directly applicable, this is a federal law, and so there are no states rights issues to address. There are also discrimination issues in the current machine gun laws, for all practical purposes, only the rich are allowed to own these guns. This set of laws should be attacked from that perspective first, and then have the second amendment argument addressed. In the oral arguments for the Heller case, there was a tacit agrement that machine guns fulfill the military portion of the second amendment.



By the way, I really like everallm’s comment:

"Remember children, once we have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend." How many times do we forget this important lesson?

As just a thought to gbran. I left California two years ago, one of the reasons was the gun laws in that state. I had tried for decades to constrain the shift to the left with little effect. I have now moved to Missouri, a state that has must issue laws, and allows you to put a loaded handgun in the glove box of your car.

Not being a lawyer, I don't understand why the 2nd Amendment needs to be "incorporated." Some of the other amendments, yes, as they read "Congress shall make no law..."--obviously, their original intent only applied to Congress. Indeed, for example, some states had established churches into the 1800's. But the 2nd Amendment simple says, "shall not be infringed"; it sounds to me like that already applies to the states. No?

"Well you can own a machine gun but only if it was made before May of 1986"

How do you even defend that garbage rationally?

Click to expand...

Hopefully they can't. Which also means any language such as "Any high-capacity magazine lawfully owned prior to Sept. 13, 1994 is grandfathered" is ruled null and void as well, thus striking down the NYS assault weapons ban.

Seriously though, if by some miracle, NYS and NYC are rid of their gun laws, I'm grabbing my AKs and my Glock and moving to either Sleepy Hollow or Manhattan. I miss NY in the fall... but I'd miss my civil rights a whole lot more...

You absolutely can challenge a state law in Federal court for violating the Federal constitution. Happens all the time.

Chicago is obvious, but depending on the wording of the decision it may not be the only target.

Some of these judges seemed to understand that if you can "keep" guns, you can "bear" them. With a leeeetle bit of luck they might do similar to the Ohio Supreme Court decision that turned down concealed carry but in the same breath said "...but of course, we all know open carry is legal..." which was big news to most cops in that state . That led to the open-carry protest marches and CCW soon after (without losing open carry along the way).

If the US Supremes support that same logic, we can fight for open carry rights in any state that bans it (California anyone?) and then like Ohio, turn that into "OK you soggy-diaper-heads, give us CCW or we'll freak y'all out open strapping...".

That would be just awesome karma . I'd make a special trip just to walk down Telegraph Ave in Berkley with a New Vaquero hangin' out .

(Understand: I'm saying get open carry via the courts and THEN strap...follow?)

Gura conceded on Machine guns - read the transcript. And he nearly did on licensing. I really do hope the decision is very narrow so there is no precedent on the issue. Then the issue can be argued in the future. Gura also conceded too much on the types of allowable weapons generally, IMO. And he did not have enough comebacks on why banning handguns is unreasonable. Or on trigger locks. As I said, I hope it's limited to personal vs collective right and affirm the lower court. Let the standard of review wait for another day. (wishful thinking)

Jim March said:

That would be just awesome karma . I'd make a special trip just to walk down Telegraph Ave in Berkley with a New Vaquero hangin' out .

Click to expand...

The laundomats in the area would be packed for days cleaning up all the urine stained pants and underwear! Those granola-munchers would be in therapy for months!

How about a challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968? With NICS in place, there is no legitimate reason not to allow mail-order sales of firearms.

~G. Fink

God I hope the Sullivan Act is next. Permitting is an abomination. You have to pay to excercise a constitutional right? It means you don't own your guns, the city does. If you don't have the money to pay $340 in NYC then the NYPD comes and gets your guns. So not only do you have to pay but you are basically renting your guns $340 bucks at a time.

Incorporation of the 2nd via the 14th will be the next case to confront SCOTUS, assuming a favorable decision in Heller.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In Nevada, for example, an individual right to keep and bear arms already exists in the state Constitution - but it only applies to citizens. What about non-citizens who are here legally? They don't have a right to keep and bear arms? (Not provoking a debate on this issue, just merely pointing to a possible subject for future S.Ct. attention).

Source material on the Sullivan Act being next: http://www.nysun.com/article/73039

"I can guarantee that if we win this, New York's laws will be challenged," a lawyer who is representing Mr. Heller, Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, said.

Mr. Levy, who has financed Mr. Heller's suit, said he currently has no plan to bring a similar suit challenging New York City's gun regulations.

Click to expand...

So, Levy suspects that they'll be challenged, but he doesn't plan on being the one that does it.

Agreed. In Nevada, for example, an individual right to keep and bear arms already exists in the state Constitution - but it only applies to citizens. What about non-citizens who are here legally? They don't have a right to keep and bear arms? (Not provoking a debate on this issue, just merely pointing to a possible subject for future S.Ct. attention).

Click to expand...

Althouugh inconsistant with the SCOTUS decision in Verdugo-Urquidez, I believe original intent would have described "people" in the 2nd as equivalent to all those eligible to vote... It would be an interesting case.

If they rule it is an individual right; then $$$ for permits will be the next IMHO.

There are reams of case law and precedent against taxation/fee's on rights.

Re citizens/non citizens "allowed" firearms.

This is already established law that Permanent Resident Aliens aka Green Card holders can keep and bear arms.

As a PRC you have basically all the rights and privileges of a citizen except for voting for those matters that affect the national characteristic (Prez, Senate, Congress).....Oh except where further prohibited by state law on a fairly arbitrary basis.

The only bizarre tweak seems to be that some otherwise firearm friendly states allow CCW for citizens but not for PRA's. There is an ongoing thread on THR on this with Wisconsin I believe.