What cases are in the wings after McDonald v. Chicago?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Going with the presumption that we win McDonald v. Chicago, what are the other cases that are in the wings for SCOTUS?



Which case will most likely be heard first?



Such as cases on Level of scrutiny, Machine gun ban, etc, what do you think?
.

 

[dvcrsn]

I know there is a case concerning allowing people to carry in DC, as well as cases aimed at eliminating the California "not unsafe gun list" and the "assault weapon" based laws in DC. One of the head honchos for the Cali Rifle and Pistol Assoc was at the South Bay NRA members council on the first Thursday--apparently Chuck Michel (NRA's attorney in Cali) has cases lined up

 

[Buck Snort]

The Sykes case if CA could open up "shall issue" thruout the state.

 

[Girodin]

Level of scrutiny is the next big thing we need to win. That will greatly affect how valuable the victories in Heller and McDonald (going with the OP's presumption on the outcome) are. We know from Heller that the 2nd is not unlimited. We don't know what the limits are and the level of scrutiny will in large measure determine that

Going right to machine guns would be folly given the language of Heller which gives a strong impression that machine guns could be restricted.

Further Heller includes the following language on what it is not saying is declaring to run afoul of the second

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbiding the carryin of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Carrying..................to establish the right to keep and bear arms, and possibly set the level of scrutiny.

 

[rm23]

Is there a reason for cases challenging DC gun laws before states laws? I mean, why go through the hassle of taking a Heller to the Supreme Court only to need to return for McDonald? Was this not foreseeable?

 

[Deanimator]

Is there a reason for cases challenging DC gun laws before states laws? I mean, why go through the hassle of taking a Heller to the Supreme Court only to need to return for McDonald? Was this not foreseeable?

DC is not a "state". It's under the purview of the Federal government.

Heller covered the actions of the Federal government, NOT the states. McDonald will determine whether the 2nd Amendment limits the powers of the states via incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

 

[rm23]

Yeah, I understand that. What I'm asking is, would there have been a difference in McDonald if Heller had not happened?

 

[Deanimator]

Yeah, I understand that. What I'm asking is, would there have been a difference in McDonald if Heller had not happened?

With Heller first, it's much harder to justify a radically contrary decision in McDonald.

Heller was the foundation for the likely outcome of McDonald.

 

[Al Norris]

What I'm asking is, would there have been a difference in McDonald if Heller had not happened?

Heller established that an individual right existed under the 2A. Without the right being established, there could have been no McDonald, as there would be nothing to "incorporate."

Heller established the right, but did not establish any boundaries (scope) on the right, other than the clear right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense and defense of the home.

McDonald will only establish that the right can be held against (incorporated) the States and local governments.

There first had to be a Heller. Then there had to be a McDonald. After these two, we can go after the "low-hanging fruit" and expand the scope of the right.

 

[jmortimer]

Heller involved Federal jusridiction - i.e. District of Columbia. McDonald is a States' right issue as well. Outcome will be the same with Justice Kennedy deciding what happens. His opinion is more often than not the only thing that matters on important matters. Cases winding their way up the judicial food chain involve States' rights laws involving intrastate manufacture of guns and ammunition not intended for interstate commerce. Seems like a simple issue but the "progresive" judges have previously determined that as a practical matter there is no such thing as intrastate commerce - it all belongs to the federal government. Sad.

 

[Buck Snort]

We have to get this stuff all settled NOW! Because the next time our socialist president makes an appointment to the SCOTUS it could very well tip the balance of the court to the left.

 

[HeavyDuty]

I'm hoping the remaining AWB laws will be challenged.