DSAPT9
Member
I agree with other comments. I think Scalia's opinion makes it clear it might be a good question for other cases. It may even shut down any wait time or cool off period as well. This restricts your right as well.
No, what they did was carefully isolate the issue of whether the Second Amendment actually confers an individual right, so that the Court couldn't sidestep answering that question. Had they also argued the licensing question, the Court could have chosen to decide the case on the based solely on the question of licensing, and decided that question in such as way that they didn't have to answer the question of what the 2nd actually means.It seems to me that Heller compromised his own rights before the court by agreeing to the licensing restriction. Perhaps the defense felt that not agreeing to this point would be pushing their luck.
That would be a "Tax" and has also been coverd by previous SCOTUS decision as a no-no.Here is how I see it. We are not going to license you but will have to charge a 25$ fee to verify that you are not a felon or mentally ill. This will be on a state level, more in-depth than federal. So to do this we will need all you info so we can process this, then from time to time we will have to review your record to make sure your slate is still clean. If it is not, we have to have your gun info so we know what we are going up against when we come to take it away for violating state law.
But it is not a license or a restriction Honest.
They have lost nothing by not asking about licensing. The decision actually addresses that, by saying that they are not making a ruling about licensing.
So long as the FOID card does not cost anything then it would be the same as a Voter ID - which also cannot have a cost to acquire. And just as you do not have to reveal how you voted, one would think that you would then not have to reveal which firearms you owned...if any.If the 2nd amendment enumerates a right, and you cannot license a right, how does this play out for states like Massachusetts and Illinois that require you to have an FID card to even purchase a rifle or shotgun? While it is not called a license, it is a de facto license in that nobody will sell to you without one.
The Supreme Court has been down the licensing road before:
Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (cannot be compelled to pay a tax in order to exercise a right)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (waiting period for welfare check is void as it touches upon fundamental right of interstate travel)
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 538-40 (1945) (registration to exercise a right is unconstitutional)
United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968) (government cannot chill exercise of fundamental right)
Minnepolis Star v. Minnesota Commn'r of Rev., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (taxes on fundamental are unconstitutional)
Licensing, taxes and waiting periods are not reasonable restrictions on fundamental, individual rights as licensing, taxes and waiting periods are unconstitutional when it involves one's rights.
NFA '34 is a TAX law. Now it is clearly a TAX to exercise a fundamental right. It would seem that ALL of those provision are now illegal. Thoughts?
But by the Miller decision they would have been. All that was lacking was for the ample evidence of their "use to the militia" to have been brought before the court. Also there will need to be some clarification that the "in common use" terms used in the original Militia acts referred to caliber much more than to type - as it was a logistics issue. Back then, once the Militia was called up, the government became responsible for resupplying ammunition - so they "required" the militiamen to maintain arms that could be resupplied by the "standard" military supply chains.NFA is only a tax to exercise a fundamental right if the arms covered by the NFA are the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment.
In the Heller decision, Scalia suggests that this is not the case; but I think a closer read will show that Scalia is saying it is not the case right now.
From a pragmatic standpoint, we need some new members on the Court as well as victories on incorporation and strict scrutiny before we will have much chance expanding the definition of arms.
But by the Miller decision they would have been.
Well, that is your interpretation and although it seems like a plausible one, it isn't the one that the Court just gave to Miller in this decision. That interpretation is the one that will be used going forward, not Miller.
I don't see how a reasonable mind could come away knowing that these CCW permits/licensing are anything but infringements after looking it up in any dictionary.
Well, that is your interpretation and although it seems like a plausible one, it isn't the one that the Court just gave to Miller in this decision. That interpretation is the one that will be used going forward, not Miller.
Ahh, light bulb finally clicked on. Thank you.
Zoogster said:Miller was redefined from one of the most pro military weapons cases into one that does not help us at all.
Only in recent times by the antis though as far as I know, and that is because it was allowed to get that way.The test of the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment in Miller wasn't all that great - after all, Miller has been the basis for the collective rights ruling being upheld in 11 Circuits over the past 70 years. So I wouldn't be too heartbroken to see it go.
So do I, in fact Heller replaces some of what was lost in Miller with new merits to argue the possession of military style arms, while at the same time contributing a lot more. The only major negative is it legitimizes government oversight (and hence thier ability to infringe on something that "shall not be infringed".)I read your arguments in the big thread and didn't find them compelling. Frankly, I think that Heller is a big help to us.