Chance of CCW "shall issue" in states like CA after McDonald?

[Kali]

Hypothetically lets say we are very fortunate in the ruling. Would the decision even include CCW or would it take more cases or a bill to change "may issue" to "shall issue" in states such as CA?

If CCW doesn't have a chance of being addressed, what other things could we hope for? The end of magazine limits?

 

[ArmedBear]

Neither.

McDonald would only open up the possibility of court challenges, and decisions, to determine what "infringed" means. Since most of these laws are State laws, you need McDonald to have standing.

California does not have RKBA in its Constitution. Idaho does. A challenge here would probably be an in-state affair. In California, you have nobody to sue, unless the McDonald ruling finds that Californians are entitled to RKBA under the 2nd Amendment as applied by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Otherwise, you have absolutely no guaranteed right to keep or bear arms in California.

THAT is why McDonald matters so much in a few states, including California. It would mean that you can sue for your right to keep and bear arms. That would not automatically change any current laws, though.

So far, there hasn't been a court case that decided whether "may issue" or magazine size limits are an "infringement" of the 2nd Amendment (or due process in the case of "may issue"), no matter how you and I feel about it...

Keep your powder dry and your fingers crossed, and support NRA, SAF, et al.

 

[Kali]

Ok that clears a lot up. thank you.

 

[Librarian]

... which is why Sykes v. McGinness (another Alan Gura project) is on hold for McDonald.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think if the US Supreme Court applies the 2nd Amendment to the states under the 14th amendment, we will see California attempt to secede from the union...

California should become it's own country anyway - The People's Republik of California

Good explanation ArmedBear!

 

[KBintheSLC]

I am thinking that it will aid in creating a swath of lawsuits against various state/local governments so that they quiver in fear of even thinking of pushing gun control legislation. As for existing laws such as "shall issue", it could help there as well since the 2nd Amendment not only permits us to "keep" but also to "bear" arms. I doubt it will change things like mag limits and "assault weapons" bans.

 

[Kali]

I would be ok with mag limits and assault ban if we could get ccw. I've never actually considered the possibility of ccw in CA. Looks like if this decision is favorable it might be in the cards someday. Knock on wood!

 

[freakshow10mm]

Rights are not a compromise.

 

[ArmedBear]

I doubt it will change things like mag limits and "assault weapons" bans.

That is hard to say.

I think that some magazine size limits may pass the "in common use" test. California could ban something like an exotic 50-round pistol drum magazine that fits in a 1911. However, there's a good argument to be made that a magazine that fits completely inside the magazine well (e.g. 13-round XD45) and is commonly bought, sold and used throughout most of the US for defensive firearms, is protected under Heller. Something like "must fit in the magazine well with no more than 3/4" protruding from the grip" might pass muster, but arbitrarily limiting pistol magazines to 10 rounds when modern pistols hold an average of what, 15 or so, is little different from only allowing muzzleloaders. It clearly bans defensive weapons that are "in common use by civilians."

The same could go for commonplace AR-based rifles/carbines and standard-issue magazines that fit them, especially when the bans can be shown to be arbitrary (e.g. California's AW list that bans by brand and model number, while allowing utterly identical receivers to be bought and sold). The problem is finding someone who wants to take the risk of being convicted of a felony, then appeal it and hope not to end up in prison. There's an intrinsically unjust element to the notion of "standing" as it is now applied.

 

[Deanimator]

McDonald doesn't directly deal with CCW.

What McDonald is far more likely to do is to eliminate Chicago's gun ban and in short order gut NYC's Sullivan Law which is only marginally less onerous.

McDonald MAY lay the foundation for shall issue CCW of the sort that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have.

But that is in all likelihood a ways down the road.

 

[dougwx12]

Rights are not a compromise.

Umm, yes, they are. Just much less so than privileges. Nothing is absolute, and we do RKBA no favors by refusing to see shades of gray.

Sorry, off topic.

 

[05FLHT]

McDonald doesn't directly deal with CCW.

What McDonald is far more likely to do is to eliminate Chicago's gun ban and in short order gut NYC's Sullivan Law which is only marginally less onerous.

McDonald MAY lay the foundation for shall issue CCW of the sort that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have.

But that is in all likelihood a ways down the road.

If by ways down the road you mean after a ruling of incorporation in McDonald. There have already been several challenges filed in regards to concealed/open carry of firearms.

 

[cbrgator]

Assuming all goes to plan, the legal landscape for gun owners years down the road will be very favorable. But do not forget that this process progresses incrementally at the speed of a crawl. Rome wasn't built in a day.

First we needed Heller to uphold our right generally. Now we need McDonald to apply the right to the states. Once that happens, we can slowly but surely start picking at the manner and scope of the right. But that happens one issue at time. Hopefully the court will apply strict scrutiny to gun legislation (considering its a fundamental right), thus invalidating much of it.

Just be patient and be aware. Support who you can with whatever you can.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

It will open the way to litigation. Someone noted that this is likely to engender a whole new category of lawyers.

Hmmm. Lawsuit... Deep pockets... Maybe I've found a way to finance my retirement in California.

 

[Kali]

Rights are not a compromise.

Compromise is better than having nothing at all. Ill take what I can get now and fight for the rest later.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

^^^ Sometimes delaying your attack gives the enemy time to regroup. Sometimes you have to take the initiative and go with the momentum!

IMO

 

[Quiet]

Sykes v. McGinness is pretty much the "shall issue" CCW lawsuit for CA, currently on hold pending the outcome of McDonald.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Compromise is better than having nothing at all. Ill take what I can get now and fight for the rest later.

I wonder how many Jews in Nazi Germany felt the same way? By the time later comes around, it may change into too late before you had a chance to notice it.

 

[Deanimator]

Compromise is better than having nothing at all. Ill take what I can get now and fight for the rest later.

The trick is to APPEAR to "compromise" without actually doing so. That's how the anti-gunners have gotten as far as they have. In exchange for national reciprocity, we won't challenge the NFA... THIS year.

Heller was a "good first step" toward "reasonable gun regulation" in America. McDonald will be the next. Who knows what comes after that, but eventually we hope to get to the "reasonable" step of virtually NO regulation.

We didn't land on Kyushu in 1942. We landed on Guadalcanal. But we did get to Japan eventually. Heller was the Battle of the Coral Sea. McDonald will be Midway. If Bloomberg doesn't fold immediately, the applicable NYC case will be the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

If the Court ruled for strict scrutiny and declared for shall issue CCW, that would be Hiroshima in 1943. It'd be great. It's just not likely.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I just pray that the topography of the SCOTUS does not change in its majority sentiment towards the individual RKBA. There were many times in our nations history when it was far less favorable. Since we have a marginal 5/4 majority, we ought to go with it for the time being. However, we cannot rely on the courts to work in our favor forever.

As a new CA resident who lost his (CCW/Standard Mag Cap/Semi-Auto Rifle) rights coming from UT, I am praying for McDonald to stomp Chicago and bring us hope for restoring freedom here. CA is a beautiful state, and would make a nice place to live if they fixed a few fundamental problems.

 

[05FLHT]

It is going to depend on if The SCOTUS sets the level of scrutiny in McDonald vs. Chicago. If not, circuit courts are already setting scrutiny levels based on the ruling in Heller. For example, in the 7th Circuit, the court decided on strict scrutiny (see US vs Skoein) for the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense."

Any discretionary permit issuance, let alone an outright ban on the bearing of arms (Illinois) is going to be immediately challenged.

 

[ArmedBear]

CA is a beautiful state, and would make a nice place to live if they fixed a few fundamental problems.

Those problems go very, very far beyond gun laws.

 

[Deanimator]

As a new CA resident who lost his (CCW/Standard Mag Cap/Semi-Auto Rifle) rights coming from UT, I am praying for McDonald to stomp Chicago and bring us hope for restoring freedom here.

The silver lining of Chicago's position is that it's both irrational and incompetent.

They could have just returned to the previous registration structure, and they'd have been done. Instead, Daley is pushing his Berlin 1945/Fuehrerbunker/"Sieg oder Tod" agenda. It is PURELY ego driven by Daley. And like most important decisions based solely in ego, it's a colossal loser. It could well be the Stalingrad of the gun control movement. And Daley couldn't care less. It's not his money.

By most accounts, Chicago's law department is WILDLY incompetent. They regularly settle the most transparently fraudulent police brutality cases, while going to the mat on a wrongful death case where the perpetrator was caught shooting the victim on MULTIPLE video cameras, then lied about the act.

The odds of Chicago prevailing in McDonald are vanishingly small.

Sometimes you're just blessed by having the right enemies.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If the Court ruled for strict scrutiny and declared for shall issue CCW, that would be Hiroshima in 1943. It'd be great. It's just not likely.

Let's say the US Supreme Court ruled that all states must adopt at a minimum a shall issue permit. Would that still not violate the rights of those persons who could not afford to pay for the permit and for the training? Again, I go back to my argument, what would (and did) happen when Americans had to pay a tax to vote?

 

[Deanimator]

Let's say the US Supreme Court ruled that all states must adopt at a minimum a shall issue permit. Would that still not violate the rights of those persons who could not afford to pay for the permit and for the training? Again, I go back to my argument, what would (and did) happen when Americans had to pay a tax to vote?

You have to take Guadalcanal before you can sail into Tokyo Bay.

We're finally headed in the right direction.