The next SCOTUS case?

[mnw42]

I was sitting here at work, reading various threads and articles on the Heller case and began to wonder: what might be the next case that might make it to the SCOTUS? I'd like to see a case on reciprocal CCW licenses; giving "full faith and credit" to other states permits. Art. IV, Sec. 1 of the constitution applies to driver's licenses, doctor's licenses, etc., but not a license to carry and that seems almost an anachronism. If I happen to have my CCW on me and have to run to NJ or DE for an emergency (or any other reason); I shouldn't be forced to stop and and disarm myself or purge my car of a loose and unknown HP else commit a felony.

Is it reasonable to have the courts force national reciprocity or is it better to hope for a legislative remedy?

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

 

[green-grizzly]

Right, Chicago will probably be next. Its regime is very similar to DC's, so the issue can be limited to incorporation.

The problem is that the Supreme Court can continue to duck the issue until we win a case.

 

[everallm]

As LegalEagle states, the next LEGAL issue is incorporation, unless the SC bundles it in as part of the Heller ruling.....extremely unlikely.

I believe this would only be able to occur once state level laws were to be challenged so Chicago and potentially NY would not necessarily initiate an SC challenge.

Also we have to jump through the legal hoops first.....

I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong but for a case originating in say Chicago, it would go

City Court
County Court
State Supreme Court
Circuit Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of the USA

AND even then you have to prove STANDING as has already been seen in the current case where Heller is (pardon the pun) the last man standing out of the original plaintiffs.

The problem is that unlike a number of other legal systems, you can't simply challenge the law.

You have to either prove the law as applied to you is unjust/unconstitutional (Heller applied for and was denied a permit for a pistol) or you have to break the law, be convicted and appeal.

For all the "I'm gonna get me a fully tricked out M4 after this" folks out there, this is only the NEXT step, don't expect substantive change immediately.....

 

[legaleagle_45]

I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong but for a case originating in say Chicago, it would go

It will go:
1.) US District Court
2.) US Court of Appeals
3.) SCOTUS

AND even then you have to prove STANDING

As in Heller, an application will be made for a handgun permit. The application will be refused and the denial of the application will be the ticket to federal court based upon federal question jurisdiction.

 

[mnw42]

It is possible that Chicago's restrictive laws might be affected by the Heller decision, depending on the wording.

The reciprocity issue just bugs me. Especially since I live so close to communist Trenton, NJ and have reason to go there from time to time for work. Additionally, in my mind it seems to be an obvious constitutional challenge.

I also think that if the court establishes the 2nd as an individual right and equal to the rest of the Bill of Rights it could completely re-shape the whole debate and possibly make inclusion with the 14th unnecessary?

I expect the SCOTUS to word its decision very narrowly.

 

[riverdog]

Agree with legaleagle

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

 

[TexasRifleman]

The last one was in 1939. I think we have a bit of a wait ahead of us folks.......

The fights now will be in State and Federal District courts. The Supremes will be done for a long time after this one.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Agree with legaleagle

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

I agree. I think the next case will be Chicago, as their handgun ban is the most restrictive and, hence, the easiest to beat.

Heller will not get us there, IMO. The Court does not need to reach the issue of incorporation to decide Heller, so given Roberts' penchant for narrow rulings, I do not think they will.

One interesting possibility is that Chicago is in the "9th Circus" if I am not mistaken. If Chicago is sued, either the District Court or the "Circus" could rule in our favor simply on the grounds of being bound by the Heller precedent. Of course they would have to incorporate the 2A to do that. But unless the city appeals to the SCOTUS, the force of the ruling could be confined to the District or the 9th Circus.

That would mean we would have to win multiple cases in different circuits, or even win some and lose some, before the SCOTUS would take a case.

While I would like to see CHL reciprocity being litigated, I do not see this as likely at the present time. The strategy is to go after the "low hanging fruit". In this case, it is the easy ones, where the local law in question clearly infringes on the 2A.

JMHO.

 

[green-grizzly]

Illinois is in the 7th circuit.

 

[sacp81170a]

green-grizzly beat me to it.

 

[Winchester 73]

If Heller is won,Chicago has to be next.
Daley will never allow his serfs to be re-armed without a high court ruling.
And even then.....

 

[Deanimator]

If Heller is won,Chicago has to be next.
Daley will never allow his serfs to be re-armed without a high court ruling.
And even then.....

Daley is practically shaking and peeing himself like a dog that's been beaten too much. He's genuinely terrified of the other shoe dropping.

Once those decision(s) come down, it doesn't matter what he thinks. All it would take would be for a few Chicago cops to get hammered with brutal judgements because they pierced their qualified immunity by KNOWINGLY violating somebody's rights. Daley can get the idiots on the City Council to pass all of the laws he wants. If there's nobody to enforce them, it's all just a morning haze that disappears with the sunrise. That's exactly what's happened in Cleveland. Mayor Jackson started running his mouth about enforcing Cleveland's AW ban in the face of state preemption. The Cleveland FOP slapped him down, publicly enjoining its members to ignore any such orders to commit crimes and civil torts by enforcing preempted law.

Repressive gun controls appear to be going the way of de jure segregation. They probably won't disappear all at once, but they're looking mighty sickly these days.

 

[green-grizzly]

The nice thing about New York and Chicago is that they have licensing requirements, making it easy to get standing.

 

[mnw42]

Daley is certainly an easy target. Every time he open his mouth he wants to harp on gun control and Chicago's laws are restrictive.

 

[Sam Adams]

Reciprocity is next on the chopping block, likely via Chicago.

BUT...

...I also think that the full auto ban, Section 922(o), is going to be challenged. Its effect is virtually identical to that of the DC ban (i.e. if you haven't registered a handgun/full auto by a particular date, then no matter what you can't get one). No breaking the ice of incorporation is needed - this is simply a suit against the BATFE, an arm of the fed.gov. DC's government is also an arm of the fed.gov, as it exists solely because of, and at the continued pleasure of, the federal government. To me, that case is a gimme.

Oh, I hear the "but machine guns are different" argument. Yeah, they can be more lethal. So? A centerfire bolt-action rifle in .308 is far more lethal at far longer ranges than any 18th century musket or even Kentucky rifle - and no one is talking about bannng those. An argument for them is the need for the militia (us) to be familiar with the operation of the nation's standard military arm. OK, but not necessary. Here's a better argument: federal law ALREADY allows full autos and, in fact, there are over 100,000 presently in civilian hands. How can, for example, an M16 manufactured on 5/20/1986 be so "abnormally dangerous" that it can be banned, when a functionally identical one manufactured in the same factory on 5/18/1986 be legal? How can the older gun be freely transferrable to anyone who complies with the '34 NFA, but the new gun can't be? The whole argument of the fed.gov would cave in on that one point.

Another issue is whether full autos and short barreled shotguns can be subject to a higher level of regulation than other guns. If the RKBA protects a fundamental right to keep and bear ARMS (not firearms, but ARMS), then why is the exercise of that right subject to permission and a fee? Is church attendence or the right to buy a book subject to such regulation? No - because they are rights, not privileges. Right now, the '34 NFA makes the ownership of pre-'86 full autos a privilege...one that can be made vastly more expensive with the stroke of President Obama's pen (for example).

Incorporation is on the chopping block - but so is the '86 full auto ban, and possibly the '34 NFA.

 

[Winchester 73]

Daley is practically shaking and peeing himself like a dog that's been beaten too much. He's genuinely terrified of the other shoe dropping.

Once those decision(s) come down, it doesn't matter what he thinks

I sure hope you are right,Deanimator.
I go to Chicago every year,having close relatives there.
This city could be an incredible place to visit without the specter of Emperor Daley and his minions monitoring our every move.
Got my fingers crossed.Carrying into Wrigley Field.
I can dream, can't I?

 

[El Tejon]

Reciprocity is next on the chopping block, likely via Chicago.

Reciprocity next on the chopping block? What? How? Huh?

Do you mean incorporation???

 

[TexasRifleman]

Oh nevermind.


What's up with THR server today?

 

[El Tejon]

TR, he probably got confused. Some people type and talk on the phone here.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah you are prolly right.

Anyway, moving on....

..I also think that the full auto ban, Section 922(o), is going to be challenged.

I think it's entirely possible to overturn the Hughes Amendment portion of FOPA at the very least.

That alone would make a world of difference.

It seems to be the most arbitrarily applied thing I've ever seen. Talk about an argument I'd love to hear Roberts and Scalia tear into...

"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?

 

[Deanimator]

I go to Chicago every year,having close relatives there.

As do I, although I hate to do so. Chicago's evil is more fundamental than mere gun control. It's a mindset. Dick Daley and Obama's pastor are examples of it. In Chicago, malice is an end in itself.

 

[mnw42]

I hadn't thought about the MG ban. I can't currently afford one so it didn't come to mind, but you are entirely correct. Though, now that I think about it, the freeze on new receivers is why I can't afford full-auto (that and a crappy job).

Challenging '86 and '34 may be impracticable since you still have to go through a series of judges who may or may not be judicially objective. Judges can be swayed by the media (mob) as much as anyone. That being said, I do think that the only way it will be repealed is by the judiciary. The CCW issue has a much better chance in Congress or by judge, based on recent history in my opinion.

 

[Henry Bowman]

If Heller says the 2A is an individual right (and designates the level of scrutiny to be given), then each of the circuits (except the 5th) will have to reconsider their position (which has been "collective right" only). Then, they will consider whether it applies to the states. Some of the worst will say "no" until the Supremes tell them otherwise. others will say "yes it applies to the states," but grudgingly so.

 

[mekender]

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