PDA

View Full Version : Overview of Recent and Current Cases


BlindRacer
02-12-2010, 10:18 AM
I've been reading as much as I can on all the recent and current cases that affect us here in CA (even read all 170 some odd pages to Heller v DC). I was wondering if there was an easy, very straight forward list of all the recent and current cases, with their decisions/ or when they'll be decided, and with how and when exactly it might affect us.

I think it would be wonderful, for myself, and anyone else who is fairly new to the political realm of this to be able to catch up on all this information, and not miss anything in their searches.

One thing specifically that I'm wondering is when McDonald is decided, how and when will that affect us in California. Is it an automatic incorporation, or do we need to file another case, with McDonald as backing? And what will the incorporation really do? Will it lift the AW laws/high cap mags/etc?

Any help with this would be amazing. Thanks in advance.



Much of this info is from Calguns' Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page) page.


Slaughter House: Temporary Loss
Date: 1873
Decision:Determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments)
Affects California: Through McDonald, this case may be overturned, causing the Selective Incorporation process to be moot and unnecessary, as the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would be applied against the states.

Heller v DC: WON!!!
Date: June 27, 2008
Decision: Protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. (A ruling on states has yet to be made)
Affects CA: Lays groundwork for future cases, based on an individual right, and not one solely to State Militias.

McDonald v Chicago: Pending
Date: Oral arguments with SCOTUS are scheduled for March 2, 2010
Decision: If decided in 2A favor, will overturn a handgun ban, and other aspects of gun registration regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, in Chicago, Illinois as unconstitutional.
Confidence level of Decision in 2A favor: From Joshblackman.com (http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=3583), 62% predict that the Court will reverse the decision of the 7th Circuit, and strike down the ban.
Affects CA: Incorporates California with 2A. Lays groundwork for future cases. Could result in current bans being lifted.

Difference between Privileges and Immunities, and Due Process...(found here (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3748705/Due_Process_vs_Privileges_and_) by Denton)
The 14th Amendment guarantees that states cannot violate the federal privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution. This clause was effectively gutted in the 1800s by a Supreme Court decision. On its face, 14A would seem to make the Bill of Rights binding on the states. There is a bit of excitement in legal circles that the old decisions may be overturned and 14A might gain what many of us think of as its proper status.
It also guarantees due process to all persons. All BOR incorporations for as long as anyone can remember have been under the due process clause, and have been done one at a time.
It's pretty much a gimmee putt that we are going to win McDonald. All the excitement comes from the possibility that it will be the vehicle for giving 14A its full power. If we win under privileges and immunities, then only the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is protected. If we win under due process, then even the right of illegal aliens is protected.



Sykes v. McGinness (similar case Palmer v DC): Pending
Date: September 1, 2009 - Put on hold until resolution of Nordyke.
Decision: Seeks to do 2 things...
1. "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."
2. "Good moral character" shall be interpreted to mean "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms" under the common understanding of that term (felon in possession, no 5150 bar, etc.)
Affects CA: Challenges the carry license issuing policies in Yolo and Sacramento Counties. Could reciprocate through the state.

Nordyke v King: Pending
Date: September 24, 2009 - put on hold for SCOTUS decision on McDonald.
Decision: Challenges an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda. As well as State incorporation of 2A.
Affects CA: Incorporation against the states (see McDonald)

Peņa v Cid: Pending
Date: October 2, 2009 - put on hold for SCOTUS decision on McDonald and Nordyke
Decision: Challenges the California Roster of Handguns also known as The Safe Handgun List.

kf6tac
02-12-2010, 10:29 AM
If McDonald is decided in favor of incorporation, then incorporation happens automatically, but no laws will automatically fall. Lawsuits would still need to be filed attacking them individually. Fortunately, some have already been filed and are on hold pending the resolution of McDonald.

BlindRacer
02-12-2010, 10:52 AM
Thanks, I'm going to try to put together a list in the first post with information as I find it out. Obviously this won't be very detailed, but hopefully it will give a glimpse at what is coming regarding these cases.

BlindRacer
02-12-2010, 12:06 PM
I've added a handful of cases to the first post. Please let me know if any of the information is incorrect, or if something should be added. As well as any cases that should be included in this list. Thanks.

kf6tac
02-12-2010, 12:44 PM
Since you got most of these from the Wiki, it might be helpful to others to know that the Wiki link for important cases is http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page#Important_Cases

BlindRacer
02-12-2010, 1:51 PM
Thanks, I had that link in the first post, but it's good to point back to it in another place.

I actually found the calguns wiki after I started this thread. I found all the other case info in previous research in other places. The wiki does a good job with explaining the individual cases, but as far as I could tell, it didn't really explain exactly the correlation between each, and how/when they will affect us. Which is information that I still can't find on some.

kf6tac
02-12-2010, 1:53 PM
Thanks, I had that link in the first post, but it's good to point back to it in another place.

Oops, my eyes glazed over the fact that the text was also a hyperlink :o

Librarian
02-12-2010, 4:43 PM
If McDonald is decided in favor of incorporation, then incorporation happens automatically, but no laws will automatically fall. Lawsuits would still need to be filed attacking them individually. Fortunately, some have already been filed and are on hold pending the resolution of McDonald.

Right.

Incorporation gives us the club. We will need to pick up the club and use it to get courts to rule laws unconstitutional. After a while, most of the small players will get the message that defending such laws will be very costly and still result in a loss, and they'll drop out.

Big players - San Francisco, Los Angeles, the State - get to use other people's money; they'll still mostly* lose, but they can afford to drag it on until 9th Circuit makes it clear they're annoyed with the cases.

*"mostly" because very little is perfect, and there may be places where the courts find a compelling state interest in some of the practices enabled by the laws.

I suspect if we could get the State to pass a real (constitutional) pre-emption law we'd have an easier time squashing inferior jurisdictions.

thegratenate
02-13-2010, 5:00 AM
My only confusion was that I had swear I read that Sykes was one of the plaintiffs in the roster case. So had been thinking that the Sykes case was the roster case, not a shall issue case. And had no idea what Pena was.

Thanks for clearing that up.

BlindRacer
02-16-2010, 8:09 AM
So the question is, how likely is it that McDonald will be decided in our favor? Is the 62% likelihood about right? Are we too optimistic? Are we too pessimistic?

It just sounds like this one case could be the game changer. It could basically mean liberty. We could be free again.

So, say McDonald is decided in our favor, how long will it take for us to start to see laws affected in CA? Within a year? Within a month?

dantodd
02-16-2010, 12:34 PM
So the question is, how likely is it that McDonald will be decided in our favor? Is the 62% likelihood about right? Are we too optimistic? Are we too pessimistic?

It just sounds like this one case could be the game changer. It could basically mean liberty. We could be free again.

So, say McDonald is decided in our favor, how long will it take for us to start to see laws affected in CA? Within a year? Within a month?

I would say that, with Gura at the helm, the probability of the second amendment is much higher than 62%. If you look around at the articles being written about McDonald it seems people are accepting that we will get incorporation and are actually spending considerably more time debating between PorI and selective incorporation.

BlindRacer
02-16-2010, 3:17 PM
I was just reading some comments in an article about McDonald...it made me think of something.

If SCOTUS has the ability to decide whether they want to hear a case or not, wouldn't the fact that they decided to hear McDonald mean that there is an extremely high likelihood of them deciding in our favor?

I mean, if they wanted to keep things as they were, then why not just deny the case in the first place?

Am I wrong to think this, or has this been on target with past SCOTUS cases?

kf6tac
02-16-2010, 3:30 PM
I was just reading some comments in an article about McDonald...it made me think of something.

If SCOTUS has the ability to decide whether they want to hear a case or not, wouldn't the fact that they decided to hear McDonald mean that there is an extremely high likelihood of them deciding in our favor?

I mean, if they wanted to keep things as they were, then why not just deny the case in the first place?

Am I wrong to think this, or has this been on target with past SCOTUS cases?

The threshold for granting certiorari is lower than the threshold for actually deciding a case. Cert can be granted by a minority -- specifically, four of the nine Justices.

BlindRacer
02-16-2010, 3:51 PM
Got it, so the 4 conservative Justices could have decided to hear, while the 4 liberals and 1 fence sitter may decide against it.

However, since the fence sitter decided with us in Heller, it sounds like he/she will decide with us here.

Does anyone know if it was either 4 or 5 justices who granted certiorari? If 5, then we may know that this case is a little stronger.

BlindRacer
02-17-2010, 8:11 AM
This link...

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald

explains what is going on in the McDonald case extremely well. It explains all the differences between Gura and the NRA's approach, and explains what may come of things once there is a decision. Very good read for anyone who's interested.

BlindRacer
02-17-2010, 12:19 PM
I made a handful of updates to the first post including a section that explains the difference between Privileges and Immunities, and Due Process