Posted: 6/29/2010 7:29:42 PM EDT
|
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
what's this mean for those of us in restricted states? |
|
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
n its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner." The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban. Backgrounder: WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices. Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country. "In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court. He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply––or incorporate––parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front. Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read –– I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant." The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so. James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states. "[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms." Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by –– by jury." Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail. |
|
Haha. You are a little late to the party!
But the cliff notes are...If you are in a ban state...you will need to bring suit against your state's gun laws in federal court one by one, or all at once if you are so inclined. It is still going to be a slow process...but very doable. AWBs may be toast soon. May issue CCW permits and overly restrictive or difficult applications may also be toast. Since AR15s are in common usage in the US, California may not be able to ban them in their original / intended design...read: no more bullet buttons or evil feature bans. |
|
Quoted:
Haha. You are a little late to the party! But the cliff notes are...If you are in a ban state...you will need to bring suit against your state's gun laws in federal court one by one. It is still going to be a slow process...but very doable. AWBs may be toast soon. May issue CCW permits and overly restrictive or difficult applications may also be toast. Since AR15s are in common usage in the US, California may not be able to ban them in their original / intended design...read: no more bullet buttons or evil feature bans. Thx this is what I was wondering about I hope this is the case 
|
|
Quoted:
Right but I'm wondering if this means they can start suing the state of Ca and get some of our shitty laws repealed like the 50rnds per mo law. Yes you can start suing. The 2nd is now a fundamental civil right...same as free speech and freedom or religion. And the 50 round a month law will NOT fly. It would be a defacto ban on guns if a state restricted ammo purchases. |
|
Quoted: They can, but there is a strategy to this. Next up is North Carolina. Gura and the SAF don't think its time to go after California or New York yet. They need to lay more ground work.Right but I'm wondering if this means they can start suing the state of Ca and get some of our shitty laws repealed like the 50rnds per mo law. If we rush this, we could end up losing a case, and then be stuck with that precedent. So its best to work this like a chess game, pick the right cases in the right places in the right order to build the foundation you need to go after places like Cali... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They can, but there is a strategy to this. Next up is North Carolina. Gura and the SAF don't think its time to go after California or New York yet. They need to lay more ground work.
Right but I'm wondering if this means they can start suing the state of Ca and get some of our shitty laws repealed like the 50rnds per mo law. If we rush this, we could end up losing a case, and then be stuck with that precedent. So its best to work this like a chess game, pick the right cases in the right places in the right order to build the foundation you need to go after places like Cali... Source? I think going after New York City's defacto long gun and hand gun bans would be the best angle of approach. It isn't risky at all. NYC's LONG GUN laws are the worst and most restrictive in the nation, and their handgun laws are the 2nd worst, behind Chicago. (Yes NYC is harder than DC to get a handgun. MUCH HARDER). ETA: However I may agree that going after a "friendly" state's semi-restrictive pistol permitting process FIRST is indeed smart...set precedent with outlawing North Carolina's kinda difficult permitting process, then flat out DESTROY NYC's laws. "Hey if North Carolina's somewhat tough gun laws are unconstitutional, then NYC's HAVE TO BE!" |
|
Quoted: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SAF-Sues-to-Overturn-North-bw-3565757493.html?x=0&.v=1Quoted: Quoted: They can, but there is a strategy to this. Next up is North Carolina. Gura and the SAF don't think its time to go after California or New York yet. They need to lay more ground work.Right but I'm wondering if this means they can start suing the state of Ca and get some of our shitty laws repealed like the 50rnds per mo law. If we rush this, we could end up losing a case, and then be stuck with that precedent. So its best to work this like a chess game, pick the right cases in the right places in the right order to build the foundation you need to go after places like Cali... Source? I think going after New York City's defacto long gun and hand gun bans would be the best angle of approach. It isn't risky at all. NYC's LONG GUN laws are the worst and most restrictive in the nation, and their handgun laws are the 2nd worst, behind Chicago. (Yes NYC is harder than DC to get a handgun. MUCH HARDER). ETA: However I may agree that going after a "friendly" state's semi-restrictive pistol permitting process FIRST is indeed smart...set precedent with outlawing North Carolina's kinda difficult permitting process, then flat out DESTROY NYC's laws. "Hey if North Carolina's somewhat tough gun laws are unconstitutional, then NYC's HAVE TO BE!" |
|
Ah ok thanks.
Could this effect NY, NYC and CA carry laws? If it's deemed that North Carolina outlawing the carrying of a concealed handgun only during a state of emergency is unconstitutional, then how the hell is NYs ban on carrying a concealed handgun without going through a lengthy, difficult and expensive permitting process constitutional? It looks like a good game of chess Gura is playing...or maybe he just wants to take a break and go after an easy state before tackling NY, NYC, CA and NJ. |
|
Quoted:
Right but I'm wondering if this means they can start suing the state of Ca and get some of our shitty laws repealed like the 50rnds per mo law. The info you are seeking could be more easily found here: Calguns 2nd Amendment, Politics and Laws -Sven |
|
Quoted:
Could this effect NY, NYC and CA carry laws? That's about five steps down the road. Heller mentioned the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms" glancingly, with Scalia saying: "c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." There's a lot of leeway in that statement, which is why Gura & co want to nail down other aspects first. |