Supreme Court likely decision to overturn Chicago's gun ban could impact New York

[Cavalier Knight]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to overturn Chicago's handgun ban in a case gun rights groups plan to use against firearms laws in New York City and nationwide.

Mayor Bloomberg and the city chose to sit out the case and did not file a brief with the court supporting President Obama's hometown of Chicago.

"We don't expect it to impact on New York laws," a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago. But both gun rights and gun control groups predict a rash of suits aimed at loosening the city's rules on gun permits.

The case involves 76-year-old Chicago resident Otis McDonald, who claimed the city's 1982 ban on handguns left him prey to street gangs.

In oral arguments Tuesday, the justices signaled they are ready to pivot off a 2008 case, which overturned the handgun ban in the federal enclave of Washington and extend the right to "keep and bear arms" to states and localities.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the nine-member court, observed that the right to possess a gun has a "fundamental character" akin to freedom of speech. A decision in the case is expected this summer.

LINK

 

[hnk45acp]

God I hope so, but not holding my breath, the NYC corp. counsel will fight tooth and nail against any loosening of gun laws

 

[Deanimator]

Ultimately, NYC will probably be forced to retreat (at least) to the situation which prevailed in Chicago before the ban, ie. non-discretionary licensing and registration.

Any adult non-felon who wants a gun will be able to have one in his home. Outrageous fees and requirements which materially impede exercise of 2nd Amendment rights will be prohibited.

Concealed carry is probably a matter for another day.

 

[v65magnafan]

My question is, will some states still be able to honor only their own permits--as does New York? If I so much as touch my own handgun in New York State, I am a felon.

 

[car15bill]

yep, it sucks, mb in new york we can get rid of some of these stupid laws eventually too. maybe even get rid of the assault weapons ban, since they are using the due process arguement?

 

[gc70]

"We don't expect it to impact on New York laws," a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago.

How does someone go about putting their hands over their eyes while simultaneously putting their fingers in their ears?

Hey, NYC - this one's for you.

 

[bob.a]

Quote:
"We don't expect it to impact on New York laws," a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago.
How does someone go about putting their hands over their eyes while simultaneously putting their fingers in their ears?

It's easy if you're a megalomaniac billionaire - you also get to stick your finger into the public's eye, all at the same time.

 

[bushmaster1313]

NYC also bans the Winchester Model 12 because of its high capacity magazine (six rounds)

I see McDonald maybe putting an end to may issue carry permits, but I think the political process will be allowed to decide how many rounds in your magazine and whether your semi-auto can have a pistol grip and a bayonet lug (Oh my!)

 

[cbrgator]

My question is, will some states still be able to honor only their own permits--as does New York? If I so much as touch my own handgun in New York State, I am a felon.

They don't have to honor any permits but their own.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think NYC will still have the permit system, but they will eventually have to make a provision for non-resident permits.

 

[cbrgator]

I think NYC will still have the permit system, but they will eventually have to make a provision for non-resident permits.

That's a separate challenge. There has to be an established right to carry before there can be reciprocity.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Quote:
I think NYC will still have the permit system, but they will eventually have to make a provision for non-resident permits.

That's a separate challenge. There has to be an established right to carry before there can be reciprocity.

This is the Palmer case, which is currently pending summary judgment in the D.C. District. Briefed by Alan Gura, of course! He takes the position that the jurisdiction can regulate carry, but it must allow at least one of open or concealed.

IMHO, if there is a right to bear, it means a right to have a gun with you in public. Of course, there will be gun free areas like court houses and airports. But to take a walk down your block with a gun in your pocket or on your hip, that is, IMHO, covered by the 2nd and "may issue" is an abomination.

 

[cambeul41]

How does someone go about putting their hands over their eyes while simultaneously putting their fingers in their ears?

Thumbs in ears, fingers over eyes?

 

[Golden_006]

What an arrogant jerk.

How can it not affect their laws?

Am I wrong or did Heller not say that a gun locked up, unloaded and inoperable is 2A violation. NY law right there.

Although I wouldn't hold my breath -- the moron liberal city counsel and I don't use that term lightly. They really are morons, like if they weren't in the city counsel they'd be making maybe 40,000 as public workers elsewhere. In any case they can and will with the support of most liberal wimps in the city just continue to make more laws couldn't they and wait it out till a court struck them down?

 

[Avizpls]

How does someone go about putting their hands over their eyes while simultaneously putting their fingers in their ears?

Hey, NYC - this one's for you.

Fingers over the eyes, thumbs in the ears. Akward? yes. but they will do anything to ignore common sense

 

[divemedic]

Thumbs in ears, fingers over eyes?

Head in rectum?

 

[cbrgator]

NYC can say it whatever it wants. Bloomberg can scream at the top of his lungs from the Empire State Building that McDonald has no effect. That doesn't mean he's right, and that doesn't mean he actually believes it.

He is doing the same thing Helmke of the Brady Campaign did after Heller, trying to comfort their bases by saying it's not a big deal.

Fact is, no matter what they think, the law is the law. If NYC's law is unconstitutional, it will be challenged... and it will fall. Bloomberg can make any claim he wants, but it won't be long until he finds himself in court defending the same laws he was claiming would be unaffected.


If he legitimately believes what he is saying, that's better for us. His hubris will make it easy to attack him in court because he actually thinks he's on the winning side. Let 'em think it.

 

[hnk45acp]

This is the issue:
We have a permitting system in place in NYC to OWN a gun (not carry). This is akin to a poll tax. Paying to exercise what is a Constitutional right. This will need to be challenged but currently Chicago v McDonald doesn't really affect NYC.

There is NO ban here.
There is NO requirement to keep the gun locked or unloaded in the home.

However there is the $340/3 years you have to pay to have your gun and the cumbersome process you have to go thru to get the permit, that will be have to be fought in court.
Then things like:
mag. capacity
1 gun per 90 days
"assault weapons"
CCW
will each have to be fought in court and decided if these things are within the realm of "reasonable restrictions"

 

[springfield30-06]

I wonder if the McDonald case will do anything to change the only for 'Target, Camping, Hunting, etc.' restrictions that some upstate counties stamp on their permits... and/or the law that prohibits Upstate NY permit holders that do not have a NY City issued permit from carrying in the city at all.

If it doesn't come from this case I feel that the road is being paved for it to come about in future ones. Maybe the Palmer v. DC will have more impact on these laws?

 

[MisterMike]

If it doesn't come from this case I feel that the road is being paved for it to come about in future ones. Maybe the Palmer v. DC will have more impact on these laws?

It'll be a long and rocky road. I fear that I may be pushing up daisies before this is all sorted out. While proclamations of the Court beyond the issues raised by McDonald would be considered dicta and not legally binding, I sense that the Court may want to discuss prospectively the standards of review for future RKBA cases.

 

[cbrgator]

I wonder if the McDonald case will do anything to change the only for 'Target, Camping, Hunting, etc.' restrictions that some upstate counties stamp on their permits... and/or the law that prohibits Upstate NY permit holders that do not have a NY City issued permit from carrying in the city at all.

If it doesn't come from this case I feel that the road is being paved for it to come about in future ones. Maybe the Palmer v. DC will have more impact on these laws?

McDonald won't touch those laws. All McDonald is doing is incorporating the Heller decision, and saying that states must recognize the right as well. The only actual gun law it will affect is Chicago's gun ban.

Of course, the incorporation of 2A in McDonald will now allow those laws you speak of to be challenged.

 

[.45FMJoe]

This is the issue:
We have a permitting system in place in NYC to OWN a gun (not carry). This is akin to a poll tax. Paying to exercise what is a Constitutional right. This will need to be challenged but currently Chicago v McDonald doesn't really affect NYC.

There is NO ban here.
There is NO requirement to keep the gun locked or unloaded in the home.

However there is the $340/3 years you have to pay to have your gun and the cumbersome process you have to go thru to get the permit, that will be have to be fought in court.
Then things like:
mag. capacity
1 gun per 90 days
"assault weapons"
CCW
will each have to be fought in court and decided if these things are within the realm of "reasonable restrictions"

Which is why we hope for "strict scrutiny."

 

[bushmaster1313]

The big enchilada is right to carry in places like NYC and NJ.
Anything else is gravy.

Off Topic Query: Do enchiladas have gravy?

 

[Coronach]

Right.

Remember, EVERYTHING moves in increments.

Step 1: Challenging the ban in federal jurisdiction, thus establishing that the Second Amendment does pertain to personal freedom, and destroying the asinine "militia" argument. Done with Heller.

Step 2: Challenging a state or local ban similar to DC's, thus establishing that the 2 amendment applies to state and local governments. This is what McDonald is trying to do.

Steps 3 and on are a little more convoluted, and will depend on what he states and municipalities do in response to Heller and a hopeful win in McDonald, and where we wish to strike next. Probably the next step will be finding out what restrictions, if any, are deemed to be reasonable. Once that is determined, you end up with a long list of cases (probably none SCOTUS-level) smacking down the holdouts and stubborn jurisdictions.

We have to win McDonald, first, though. Eyes on the prize.

Mike

 

[CoRoMo]

the next step will be finding out what restrictions, if any, are deemed to be reasonable.

I don't want to get ahead of the pending McDonald decision, but deciding what is reasonable could be a bloodbath for liberty. Once you agree that there are reasonable limits, well, why would any one individual ever need more than one gun? That's just my silly way of parodying what our opposition will have in mind as 'reasonable'.

I just don't see how we could benefit from having that debate at the federal level. We would only stand to lose ground whether it be magazine capacity, one gun per month, .50 caliber bans, etc. restrictions. I don't want the feds adopting something that the state of New Jersey claims is working.