What would you expect to happen?

[chibiker]

As you all know the various forums across the tubes are scattered with a plethora of dicussions involving the pending SCOTUS hearing concerning incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states, McDonald vs. Chicago.

The optimistic side of me says it would pretty much be a slam dunk in our favor and we will indeed see incorporation as in Heller and Chicago's handgun ban will be nullified. Assuming then that this is the outcome, the pessimistic side of me sees Chicago making it as difficult as possible for handgun owners to legally be in possesion of firearms. Currently they have a registration process in place for all firearms, the exception being that registration for handguns was closed back in 1982.

I know all things to be taken in steps but I fear even with a win concerning incorporation we will see years of litigation in the courts over what is acceptable practices for the regulation of firearms. What then do you suppose will be the immediate results should the ban be overturned? Could it be as simple as Chicago just reopening registration (not an idea I am fond of in the first place) to handguns?

The wife is not available right now for me to ask, she pays all the bills but I believe I currently pay $26 per year to register my shotgun. What if registration is perfectly acceptable to SCOTUS and the city decided to start charging hundreds, perhaps even a thousand dollars to register a handgun. Some could afford that, not I. Do we then end up in the courts for who knows how long till a decision is reached as to what is considered an acceptable dollar amount?

There is a ton of restrictions already in place via city ordinances as to what is prohibited and allowed concerning handguns, magazine capacity, safety mechanisms, etc... ironically enough for weapons you can't register in the first place. I doubt a favorable decision by SCOTUS for us will address much if any of this, or am I not seeing the parts of the case pertaining to this?

In summation I simply fear years of pending court cases before anything that most of us would consider reasonable restrictions or policies concerning firearms see the light of day here in Chi-town. I have lived in this city for 30 years, looking forward to moving away more than any of you will ever know but that is not happening for a few years yet. This all effects me seriously and I'd just like to hear some of your thoughts on what we might see in the immediate future. Thanks!

 

[Deanimator]

I know all things to be taken in steps but I fear even with a win concerning incorporation we will see years of litigation in the courts over what is acceptable practices for the regulation of firearms. What then do you suppose will be the immediate results should the ban be overturned? Could it be as simple as Chicago just reopening registration (not an idea I am fond of in the first place) to handguns?

That is in fact, the MOST likely immediate result, and would be a 1,000% improvement. Other than a lack of concealed carry, Chicago gun laws weren't all that bad until the registration freeze went into effect. It was FAR easier to own a handgun in Chicago than in New York City.

Even that small step would be a CRUSHING defeat for Daley.

 

[pak29]

Bring on the litigation.

Wouldn't you rather have the courts considering the merits of whether a restriction was reasonable, than the government imposing its restrictions without fear of any review? Eventually, distinct issues of who is a prohibited owner, what sorts of fees and registration requirements are valid, etc., will work their way up the chain, and we'll have some answers.

This will take some time to work out, but the foundation will be laid with a favorable decision in McDonald.

 

[chibiker]

Wouldn't you rather have the courts considering the merits of whether a restriction was reasonable, than the government imposing its restrictions without fear of any review?

Absolutely!!

My concerns are on time frames and adherence to whatever laws may be put in place. For many years I have been fortunate enough to have a family member that lives in the 'burbs and have been able to keep my modest collection of firearms there. My Uncle passed away several years ago and my Aunt has now reached the age where the house is becoming too much for her. She told me the other day that she is considering moving down South to be near her daughter and living with her or getting a condo. I knew this day would come soon but she confessed to me she has been holding off on doing so as "what would you do with all your's and your Uncle's guns?" Bless her heart.

So soon I will be faced with that situation, what to do with them. Self storage location in the burbs? Pack them up and haul them out of state to another family members home? I have no intention of registering every thing I own with the city and paying them for the priviledge of doing so. Most of them wouldn't be considered registerable in the first place due to various ordinances in place. For example, city ordinances prohibit any handgun with a magazine over 8 rounds capacity as well as requiring a load indicator, that eliminates every semi-auto I own. It goes on and on.....

 

[everallm]

If McDonald v Chicago leads to incorporation at ANY level of scrutiny under the 14th P+I then no city will be able to have its own laws stricter than the state law. So the Chicago's, NYC's, Denver's etc will see their "Special" status be immediately capable of challenge and overturn.

The rationale is simple, if 2A is an incorporated enumerated right then it is illegal to apply the law differently within the state based upon simple geographic location. Same as 1A rights for example, you can't be treated in the law differently (except in VERY VERY limited public order ways) in Buffalo or in NYC.

McDonald v Chicago is incorporated under what I believe will happen, Heightened Intermediate Scrutiny. All the states with hangovers from the AWB, the NY, NJ, CA etc will have to be work REAL hard to be able to justify the mag capacity, flash hider, folding stock, "shoulder thing that goes up" laws.
Under this scenario "Shall issue" FID cards like IL's will probably be capable of surviving but NJ's FID and "Permit to Purchase a handgun" which are hellishly more burdensome will be open to challenge.

McDonald v Chicago is incorporated under Strict Scrutiny (highly unlikely IMHO) then all bets are off......

These laws will need to be challenged but then again nothing worthwhile comes for free.

 

[Ryder]

What if registration is perfectly acceptable to SCOTUS...

Do they allow the local governments to charge people to excercise other rights? Right to religion? Right to free speech? Right to vote? They don't just register guns where you live... As if that isn't bad enough they also register YOU with a FOID. Makes me wonder how long until they'll be wanting to brand you with a serial number.

 

[everallm]

Ryder,

You fail to understand the difference between a FID and registration, they are NOT the same.

A FID is a form/card/piece of plastic etc that says, "At the time of application a series of background checks were run (differing upon the location or state you live in) that state AT THE TIME OF CHECK you were not a prohibited person as per state or federal law."

It is NOT a form of registration other than a registration that you AT THAT TIME were kosher.

It is EXACTLY the same (in intent) as requiring an individual to attest that at time of registering to vote, they are a citizen and/or not otherwise unencumbered to vote.

In both circumstances an individual can lie or otherwise dissemble and break the law and potentially suffer the consequences.

As such, if you had read the statement I posted above, you will see where there is a differentiation between a "shall issue" style of FID being POTENTIALLY legal and more burdensome forms being challengable.

NO right is unencumbered be it 2A or 1A.

With 1A, slander and libel for example ARE explicitly illegal....a "restriction"on 1A.......

With 1A, a malicious expression of "free speech" the classic crying out "fire" in a crowded public space where the individual knows that is not true is NOT a legitimate expression of free speech...a "restriction" on 1A....
etc etc etc

Read then opine is probably an appropriate stance........

 

[Gungnir]

With 1A, slander and libel for example ARE explicitly illegal....a "restriction"on 1A.......

With 1A, a malicious expression of "free speech" the classic crying out "fire" in a crowded public space where the individual knows that is not true is NOT a legitimate expression of free speech...a "restriction" on 1A....
etc etc etc

Nope incorrect.

There is no restriction on the right to free speech, or behavior, you might however be breaking the law.

The yelling fire in a crowded theater is not in itself illegal, what is illegal is if it is a public theater, there is no fire, you are part of the audience, and there is no audience participation and you are maliciously attempting to cause a riot, and of course there is a standard of behavior that is expected in the theater which is not a public place, thus under the jurisdiction of the theater owner(s). This is not a restriction of the 1st Amendment.

Similarly it's perfectly legal to write or say anything you like about anyone. However the other party also have the right to legally force you to pay damages if proven untrue, and also force a public retraction. Again not a restriction in the 1st amendment, but a constraint on malicious statements about an individual or organization.

This is a conflict of rights, and needs to be resolved in court most frequently. However it's not a restriction on the first amendment.

The second amendment doesn't have a restriction, because you have no explicit constitutional right to use your arms, only to keep and bear them. However it is perfectly acceptable to defend yourself with them if the need so arise and it's justified.

So it is with the 1st, you can defend yourself from someone exercising that right if they are doing so in a way that can cause public disturbance, or its intent is to defame an individual or organization, or it in some way conflicts with rights that are guaranteed.

It might seem like it's splitting hairs, but it's not. The fire in a crowded theater comes from a Judge (Holmes) in Schenk vs. the United States. It's paraphrased from "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." the crux is the "causing a panic", not shouting fire. For example you could shout fire in a theater and nothing happens, no one panics, you're guilty of no crime (other than being a little stupid), an actor on the theater stage could shout fire, again they're not guilty of anything, or you could shout fire because there actually is a fire, and you're not guilty of shouting fire. So it's not shouting fire in a theater that is illegal, what is illegal is falsely causing a panic, and possibly affecting the rights of others including the right to life which is again a conflict of rights.