PDA

View Full Version : - SCOTUS - Incorporation of 2nd A ...What Can We Expect Moving Forward?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Ding126
04-27-2010, 7:16 PM
I am so anxious to hear their ruling. I hope there aren't any surprises. What do you think is Best Case & Worst Case we can expect?

Shotgun Man
04-27-2010, 7:42 PM
Yeah, me too. I expect a positive ruling that 2A is incorporated against the states and Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.

I don't know whether SCOTUS will flat-out state the level of scrutiny.

What really intrigues me is what will follow with the CA lawsuits on hold (Pena, Nordyke, etc.)

Dr.Lou
04-27-2010, 7:45 PM
Fingers crossed...

GoodEyeSniper
04-27-2010, 8:03 PM
My pessimistic view on what will happen.

They grant incorporation, with very little specifics in regards to scope. They'll say a few things about "reasonable regulations" or whatever the new hot word for anti-2A laws are.

It will be a definite step in the right direction for us, but a smaller step than we'd hope. The antis will say "but, but REASONABLE REGULATIONS" etc... and keep pushing for AW bans (which won't go anywhere), and open carry bans, etc... and it will be past the end of the Mayan calendar before California sees anything remotely like Shall Issue, or getting rid of our AW Ban.

But, I'm also trying not to get my hopes up. And admittedly know less than most that post here :P

2009_gunner
04-27-2010, 8:43 PM
Another important case that should be released any day, is Palmer v DC. CCW in the nation's capital - that should be worth a few editorials.

KWA-S
04-27-2010, 8:58 PM
and it will be past the end of the Mayan calendar before California sees anything remotely like Shall Issue, or getting rid of our AW Ban.

That IS only two years away. How long has Nordyke been thrown around?

Cobrafreak
04-27-2010, 8:59 PM
If we lose SCOTUS we may as well move to AZ. It's the most important ruling on our gun right we will ever see in our lifetime. Fingers crossed.

Blackhawk556
04-27-2010, 9:32 PM
i hope this really goes our way. this will be the longest 60days ever

tombinghamthegreat
04-27-2010, 9:58 PM
Just wrote two papers for my upper division political science class about Heller and the upcoming McDonald ruling. Got a B+...only got marked down for lack of proofreading(wrote the report at the last minute, didn't proof read)

Shotgun Man
04-27-2010, 10:12 PM
Just wrote two papers for my upper division political science class about Heller and the upcoming McDonald ruling. Got a B+...only got marked down for lack of proofreading(wrote the report at the last minute, didn't proof read)

Might you post it?

press1280
04-28-2010, 3:06 AM
I am so anxious to hear their ruling. I hope there aren't any surprises. What do you think is Best Case & Worst Case we can expect?

Realistic best case is "full" incorporation,meaning none of this stuff suggested by Stevens that the states will have a watered down 2A. Also, a standard of scrutiny and maybe another look at the full meaning of the 2A, suggesting carry rights outside the home. A stronger than 5-4 split would also help.

Worst case is obviously a loss on incorporation, but that's very unlikely IMO. Otherwise, incorporation with a vague opinion on standards and the 2A meaning will ensure many more trips to the high courts for our victories.

press1280
04-28-2010, 3:10 AM
Another important case that should be released any day, is Palmer v DC. CCW in the nation's capital - that should be worth a few editorials.

The more time Palmer drags on the more I get the feeling that the judge is waiting for McDonald to come out(even though they're not the same issues). It sucks some judges may not feel like doing their own research and analysis and wait for higher courts to make decisions for them.

ZombieTactics
04-28-2010, 7:45 AM
We're going to get incorporation with intermediate scrutiny.

States like CA will try all sorts of crap with "reasonable restrictions", and probably push the limits of intermediate scrutiny.

Court case will abound ... many of which will eventually end up at SCOTUS again. The pessimist in me fears that our current POTUS will eventually end up with the death or resignation of one of the more conservative-leaning justices ... and will appoint some idiot like Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton or Janet Napolitano.

The fight is never over ... eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

tiki
04-28-2010, 8:22 AM
It sucks some judges may not feel like doing their own research and analysis and wait for higher courts to make decisions for them.

I prefer it that way. It seems that when these lower court judges make their own decisions, they wind up going to the higher courts anyway. I would rather Palmer wait for McDonald, then have them make the right decision. Otherwise, Palmer has to go back to court after McDonald if Palmer conflicts with McDonald.

Legasat
04-28-2010, 8:38 AM
I'm pretty confident (from reading), that we will get the basic right incorporated. My biggest fear is how much latitude will Scotus give the States to erect "reasonable restrictions". I think it is possible to win the case, and still not gain much ground.

Keeping finger crossed.

wildhawker
04-28-2010, 8:41 AM
On what would you base such a prediction? Further, why would you assume that California would need to "push the limits" if intermediate scrutiny were the standard for 2A?


We're going to get incorporation with intermediate scrutiny.

States like CA will try all sorts of crap with "reasonable restrictions", and probably push the limits of intermediate scrutiny.

Court case will abound ... many of which will eventually end up at SCOTUS again. The pessimist in me fears that our current POTUS will eventually end up with the death or resignation of one of the more conservative-leaning justices ... and will appoint some idiot like Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton or Janet Napolitano.

The fight is never over ... eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

GoodEyeSniper
04-28-2010, 9:50 AM
Are we going to have some local, Calguns incorporation parties around that time, by the way?

I mean, as pessimistic as I get about this, I still would be beyond shocked if they did not grant incorporation.

wildhawker
04-28-2010, 10:37 AM
Are we going to have some local, Calguns incorporation parties around that time, by the way?

Post-McDonald, count on it.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2010, 11:30 AM
Post-McDonald, count on it.

Just FYI, I work for a party bus company now...

Window_Seat
04-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Even though it's -60 days away, we could start a thread (Wait, there is one), on where we could go. I have one in mind, but they are only open in the evening hours. House of Prime Rib in S.F. We could really reward ourselves, no?

Erik.

ZombieTactics
04-28-2010, 12:29 PM
On what would you base such a prediction? Further, why would you assume that California would need to "push the limits" if intermediate scrutiny were the standard for 2A?
A little bird told me, an educated guess, lol ... whatever ... I'd probably bet money, but don't get worked over it.

I think you misunderstand me, or I explained poorly. My assumption is that CA govt. is essentially anti-gun and anti-2A (in attitude) regardless of what decisions SCOTUS hands down. No big stretch there.

As such, the CA legislature will still push the limits of what restrictions they think they can get away with under whatever scrutiny. I wholly expect them to enact laws which on their face violate whatever SCOTUS hands down, and making us all drag through extended legally wrangling to once again affirm what has already been decided in principle over some new, novel particular case.

Examples: they'll try to maintain some kind of roster under the notion that it is a "product safety issue", and not a matter of 2A rights. They'll outlaw all forms of open carry, loosen up CCW issuance, but then place all sorts of restrictions, fees and requirements in the way of CCW applicants and holders. You'll need to carry ONLY OWB-on-the-hip with a cover garment, and only certain weapons/holsters approved for CCW ... all manner of restrictions about calibers and round types ... they'll push wherever they think can.

CnCFunFactory
04-28-2010, 1:51 PM
A little bird told me, an educated guess, lol ... whatever ... I'd probably bet money, but don't get worked over it.

I think you misunderstand me, or I explained poorly. My assumption is that CA govt. is essentially anti-gun and anti-2A (in attitude) regardless of what decisions SCOTUS hands down. No big stretch there.

As such, the CA legislature will still push the limits of what restrictions they think they can get away with under whatever scrutiny. I wholly expect them to enact laws which on their face violate whatever SCOTUS hands down, and making us all drag through extended legally wrangling to once again affirm what has already been decided in principle over some new, novel particular case.

Examples: they'll try to maintain some kind of roster under the notion that it is a "product safety issue", and not a matter of 2A rights. They'll outlaw all forms of open carry, loosen up CCW issuance, but then place all sorts of restrictions, fees and requirements in the way of CCW applicants and holders. You'll need to carry ONLY OWB-on-the-hip with a cover garment, and only certain weapons/holsters approved for CCW ... all manner of restrictions about calibers and round types ... they'll push wherever they think can.


I fear you are right as we live in a state that likes to restrict our rights.

Window_Seat
04-28-2010, 2:41 PM
Examples: ... They'll outlaw all forms of open carry, loosen up CCW issuance, but then place all sorts of restrictions, fees and requirements in the way of CCW applicants and holders. You'll need to carry ONLY OWB-on-the-hip with a cover garment, and only certain weapons/holsters approved for CCW ... all manner of restrictions about calibers and round types ... they'll push wherever they think can.

(ETA to add this quote):

Gray,

Places like CA & IL will comply about as well as DC did after Heller. Put in a whole bunch of new requirements & laws that need to be fought. etc. It will happen but not as fast as many hope. Given that the 9th Circuit is not considered pro 2A doesn't help matters.

Example: "Sure Mr/Ms Federal Judge, we will get right on the shall-issue thing". CCW changed to reflect shall-issue. New training requirement - complete full 832 PC course, shooting test nobody can pass, psych exam. Oh, & we had to lay everyone off due to the budget crises so processing time is 2-3 years.


And... This is the consequence I would hope for should they do the above:
...Once carry is identified as a civil right, the idea that the above could happen is ludicrous. Remember that DC had a complete and total handgun registration ban. You also have to consider the fact that there are 40K CCW holders, especially the well off and politically powerful types (especially ones issued in the bay area and LA area) are not going to tolerate that kind of crap. They have a lot of money, lots of it, are very politically powerful, and while they may not like the idea of "normal people having guns", they hate suddenly seeing their CCW's become worthless with a lot of restrictions.

I would think that "they" would not want to make such a sacrifice, and I doubt the Legislature would create multiple "versions" of a CCW without risking being pounced upon for blatant EP violations.

Erik.

Barkoff
04-28-2010, 3:21 PM
Even though it's -60 days away, we could start a thread (Wait, there is one), on where we could go. I have one in mind, but they are only open in the evening hours. House of Prime Rib in S.F. We could really reward ourselves, no?

Erik.


Whoa son, I guess you never played any baseball as a kid, did you?

socalblue
04-28-2010, 3:25 PM
Given that we have a very anti-RKBA Legislature & a passive Governor, I have some concerns post McDonald.

Backlash from Saldana & her cronies cramming in every piece of ant-gun legislation possible. With several termed out & others losing in the primaries they have zero to lose. No threat of veto either. Could be worse after the general election, esp if Whitman wins.

Hope I'm wrong.

vantec08
04-28-2010, 5:20 PM
My hope is that we haven't turned a corner from which we can never recover. I saw an interview with a social scientist who was wise, not merely "smart." He said a society can lose one generation to its values and traditions, if it loses two or more it has mutated into something and can't recover. We are going on our third.

Uxi
04-28-2010, 6:03 PM
I'm afraid if it's won, we won't see a whole lot of change while if it loses, we still won't see much change other than UOC going away.

I hold onto a sliver of hope that "Shall Issue" becomes a mandate and that they're not TOO quick to pile on a bunch of worthless regulation on it.

Window_Seat
04-28-2010, 6:31 PM
Whoa son, I guess you never played any baseball as a kid, did you?

???:confused: You'll have to explain that one... Better yet, don't...

On to the issue...
I'm afraid if it's won, we won't see a whole lot of change while if it loses, we still won't see much change other than UOC going away.

I hold onto a sliver of hope that "Shall Issue" becomes a mandate and that they're not TOO quick to pile on a bunch of worthless regulation on it.

Sykes v. McGinness (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness)

Nordyke v. King (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King)

Pena v. Cid (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid)

Erik.

tombinghamthegreat
04-30-2010, 1:33 AM
Might you post it?
I will post it shortly....

Kharn
04-30-2010, 4:38 AM
Given that we have a very anti-RKBA Legislature & a passive Governor, I have some concerns post McDonald.

Backlash from Saldana & her cronies cramming in every piece of ant-gun legislation possible. With several termed out & others losing in the primaries they have zero to lose. No threat of veto either. Could be worse after the general election, esp if Whitman wins.

Hope I'm wrong.George Wallace thought he could keep segregation alive too. It did not work out so well for him, many antis will find the feds take a dim view of infringing upon newly supported civil rights just due to local popularity.

scc1909
04-30-2010, 8:37 AM
We're going to get incorporation with intermediate scrutiny. States like CA will try all sorts of crap with "reasonable restrictions", and probably push the limits of intermediate scrutiny.

Court case will abound ... many of which will eventually end up at SCOTUS again. The pessimist in me fears that our current POTUS will eventually end up with the death or resignation of one of the more conservative-leaning justices ... and will appoint some idiot like Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton or Janet Napolitano.

The fight is never over ... eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Corrrectomundo! Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the abortion issue (court cases abound even now...40 years later), McDonald will not be an automatic happy ending to the RKBA fight. But just as in Roe, the fight will move to the State level as State after State (the usual suspects) will push the envelope of McDonald.

Even the youngest members of Calguns will have to fight to protect your 2A rights for the REST OF YOUR LIVES. You can take it to the bank.

motorhead
04-30-2010, 10:09 AM
another plus, as i understand it, is that this may dispose of some of the outdated cases the other side often cites as precedent.

Ding126
05-24-2010, 12:33 PM
I feel like a kid waiting for christmas to come. The question is, what will I/WE find under the tree? Will it be a good Xmas or an alright / OK kind of day?

Who has a crystal ball handy?

glockman19
05-24-2010, 12:43 PM
There will be incorporation. There will be some level of Scrutiny, Strict would be my choice. But...how does any "reasonable restriction" comport with, "shall NOT be infringed"?

My guess is we are a two more cases away from a 2A that "shall not be infringed".

N6ATF
05-24-2010, 12:57 PM
I think it will take a lot more than two more cases to invoke judicial economy. There are hundreds of infringements that will be punted to SCOTUS. Where SCOTUS' breaking point* is, however...

*Where they essentially say "**** IT ALL, every past, current, and future law having anything to do with guns is unconstitutional, now stop bugging us!"

press1280
05-24-2010, 1:26 PM
I think it will take a lot more than two more cases to invoke judicial economy. There are hundreds of infringements that will be punted to SCOTUS. Where SCOTUS' breaking point* is, however...

*Where they essentially say "**** IT ALL, every past, current, and future law having anything to do with guns is unconstitutional, now stop bugging us!"

That's something I'm curious about. I've seen a few CCW denial cases(in NJ) that twist Heller by picking out the line about the 2A not granting the right to carry any weapon for any purpose, and then claim the "need" standard is constitutional.
If they keep getting these bogus rulings by twisting Heller(and then McDonald), will they start making broader rulings than they're asked for if they see the lower courts just flat out don't care if they get overruled time after time?

Joe
05-24-2010, 6:09 PM
Can't wait for the decision.

BigDogatPlay
05-24-2010, 6:18 PM
There will be incorporation. There will be some level of Scrutiny, Strict would be my choice. But...how does any "reasonable restriction" comport with, "shall NOT be infringed".

I agree that there will be incorporation, and that it will be arrived at through the Due Process clause.

If we get any measure of scrutiny my bet is the best we get would be intermediate. Arguably reasonable restrictions like felon in possession would be open to attack with the strictest scrutiny theorized above.

Call me a heretic, but I am not willing to let multi-strike violent felons own and carry firearms unencumbered upon release. And I seriously doubt that any of the learned justices are willing to either.

Ding126
05-24-2010, 6:18 PM
I hope the ruling is with some specific clarifications to avoid multiple trips to SCOTUS and many years of waiting..but I would guess thats the process.

I do wish to be in the Brady Camp with a video camera so I can record them all bursting into flames.

Shotgun Man
05-24-2010, 6:27 PM
[...]

Call me a heretic, but I am not willing to let multi-strike violent felons own and carry firearms unencumbered upon release. [...]

Hate to break it to you, but they already are.:)

hoffmang
05-24-2010, 7:03 PM
The only interesting questions will be:

1. What count for which reason for incorporation.

2. Whether we get any guidance beyond the specific facts of McDonald.

-Gene

N6ATF
05-24-2010, 7:11 PM
Call me a heretic, but I am not willing to let multi-strike violent felons own and carry firearms unencumbered upon release.

Hate to break it to you, but they already are.:)

+100000

HowardW56
05-24-2010, 7:35 PM
Call me a heretic, but I am not willing to let multi-strike violent felons own and carry firearms unencumbered upon release. And I seriously doubt that any of the learned justices are willing to either.

:iagree:

Hunt
05-24-2010, 7:41 PM
... I think it is possible to win the case, and still not gain much ground.

Keeping finger crossed.I think it is possible to lose ground even with incorporation, considering the history of the courts decisions.

VAReact
05-24-2010, 7:42 PM
i hope this really goes our way. this will be the longest 60days ever

Wait till its only Two Weeks away...:p

HowardW56
05-24-2010, 7:43 PM
Wait till its only Two Weeks away...:p


Only 7 posts and you're saying "Two Weeks"?

The last couple years have been the longest two weeks of my life....

N6ATF
05-24-2010, 7:48 PM
Only 7 posts and you're saying "Two Weeks"?

The last couple years have been the longest two weeks of my life....

It's called Groundhog Two Weeks®... we keep living the same two weeks of victim disarmament over and over again, until something slightly changes, then two weeks over and over again... rinse and repeat.

yellowfin
05-24-2010, 8:37 PM
I think it will take a lot more than two more cases to invoke judicial economy. There are hundreds of infringements that will be punted to SCOTUS. Where SCOTUS' breaking point* is, however...

*Where they essentially say "**** IT ALL, every past, current, and future law having anything to do with guns is unconstitutional, now stop bugging us!"
I really wish they'd hurry up and get to that point so I don't have another thing raising my blood pressure and acid reflux. My work is high stress enough as it is and home life isn't a rose either. I've got a wife with too much to do to go to the gym, emotional neurotic in-laws, a cluttered up house, and a car needing $4000 worth of repairs. And I just moved across the country from the 2nd worst anti gun state to the 3rd worst.

Squash the anti gun movement already, dammit, quit playing with them. Wipe them off the continent never to be seen again. While in present context that sounds like a colossal order and when held against circumstances of the present where you and I presently live an impossible fantasy, it isn't really asking much.

I'm not asking for the rest of my life's problems to be solved, just the one involving full time paid despots who we theoretically fought 2 World Wars (plus several minor ones) and wrote a Constitution >200 years ago to keep away. Is it REALLY asking for much, for simply wanting what my tax dollars pay for at present and my ancestors paid in sweat and blood just to have a few simple words on a piece of paper mean what they say? So I can sleep at the end of the day knowing that my children that I don't even have yet will have equal or more freedom than we see today, what they're actually entitled to by being a free human being living in the United States of America.

Yet all we can do is wait. The most we can do is pray for a chance reaction that's really not much more than a coin toss by people who live beyond and above consequence. And that's the best we can do and we're told to live with it. I've pledged allegiance at least once or twice a week every week my whole life to THE country, and I'm aware of but one, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE. Am I really crazy to expect and demand those words to not be empty articulations of breath, but to actually have the meaning those sacred words are supposed to mean?

N6ATF
05-24-2010, 11:39 PM
I've pledged allegiance at least once or twice a week every week my whole life to THE country, and I'm aware of but one, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE. Am I really crazy to expect and demand those words to not be empty articulations of breath, but to actually have the meaning those sacred words are supposed to mean?

I stopped reciting it years ago, when I was still in grade school. Mindless, hollow words that a government with no integrity wants the sheeple to bleat out regularly.

I'd sooner pledge allegiance to the Gadsden flag, perhaps with a variant on what was attributed to Benjamin Franklin (http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html).

"I will never begin an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrender: I am a practitioner of magnanimity and true courage. ... I will never wound 'till I have generously given notice, even to my enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on me."

Sutcliffe
05-25-2010, 12:15 AM
but not far enough for most of us. I see our home state and other utopia's like New Jersey, and Massachussets doing their best to throw roadblocks up for legal gun ownership as long as we have *****hats in office.

Window_Seat
05-25-2010, 12:38 AM
How likely is it that we get incorporation via PorI? If that happens, what can be done after CCW, the roster, LCM and AWB? Can it be possible to go after HG registrations and the 10 day wait, and even possibly, the 4473? Oh heck, all 40,000 gun control regs so I save space... VIVA P OR I, YEAH BABY YEAH!!!!!!!!!;)

Erik.

wildhawker
05-25-2010, 1:05 AM
but not far enough for most of us. I see our home state and other utopia's like New Jersey, and Massachussets doing their best to throw roadblocks up for legal gun ownership as long as we have *****hats in office.

How likely is it that we get incorporation via PorI? If that happens, what can be done after CCW, the roster, LCM and AWB? Can it be possible to go after HG registrations and the 10 day wait, and even possibly, the 4473? Oh heck, all 40,000 gun control regs so I save space... VIVA P OR I, YEAH BABY YEAH!!!!!!!!!;)

Erik.

PorI likely? Not very if the oral arguments are any indication, but some votes for are possible. PorI has some unique advantages but, ultimately, we have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I fully expect that [I]Heller is reaffirmed - not undermined-, 2A applied as against the states and bear means carry a functional firearm [as will be held in Palmer/Sykes].

As to the rest, there's plenty of fun to be had regardless of how 2A is incorporated. :43:

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g178/wildhawker/CGFRoller-1.jpg

CDFingers
05-25-2010, 5:58 AM
I would prefer the case to be won on the Equal Protection clause. But I'll take any positive decision.

CDFingers

press1280
05-25-2010, 9:13 AM
but not far enough for most of us. I see our home state and other utopia's like New Jersey, and Massachussets doing their best to throw roadblocks up for legal gun ownership as long as we have *****hats in office.

I wish there were a way that the court could mandate shall-issue in these states and also mandate that they don't all of a sudden throw down a bunch of other "requirements" right afterward (like DC did after Heller). If you take a state like NJ for example, if you do have their CCW there's very few restrictions on where you can't carry(schools/universities,government property, alcohol restaurants OK). That may change after a favorable "bear arms" ruling, but it would be nice if NJ has to explain why it was OK for CCWers to carry in those places before but not after a court ruling.

wildhawker
05-25-2010, 9:21 AM
CDFingers, McDonald is not a reverse incorporation case; Heller already applies to the Federal government. There are two theories of incorporation only (PorI and SDP); both were briefed by Gura.

loather
05-25-2010, 9:51 AM
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g178/wildhawker/CGFRoller-1.jpg

The Gun Rights Steamroller. I like it.

From right to left we've got Don Kilmer, Gene Hoffman, Alan Gura ... who's that one on the extreme left?

Regardless, I bet that steamroller is itchin' to be started up and taken for a drive through Brady headquarters. :) Supreme Court, don't fail us now!

wildhawker
05-25-2010, 9:53 AM
Far left is Jason Davis.

Stag Schwag
05-25-2010, 10:21 AM
I dont want to sound like a Debbie Downer but I am not very optimistic.

As a resident of California I just dont see how I am going to get any practical gun freedoms or liberties back after this ruling.

Will I be able to have full access to hi cap magazines ? No, I dont think so.

Will I get a CCW ? No, I dont think so.

Will I no longer have to get an attorney to explain and decipher the flow chart ? No, I dont think so.

Will I be able to possess a gun within 1000ft of a school zone ? No, I dont think so.

NightOwl
05-25-2010, 10:37 AM
Hate to break it to you, but they already are.:)

I'd even go so far as to say that I'd prefer them to be able to carry legally. I don't want people to get shot from a hypothetical "well, I'm already carrying, and that's a felony...so I don't want to go back to jail for another 10+, might as well shoot". Much better for legal carry to prevent that. Makes me wonder how many incidents of such a shooting has occurred, which could have been prevented if they were legally carrying.

Plus, they're still human. Inalienable rights and all that. They still have a right to defend themselves. If we let themout of jail, they should get all of their rights back. If they're so terrible that they don't deserve that restoration...they shouldn't get back out.

loather
05-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Will I be able to have full access to hi cap magazines ? No, I dont think so.

Not immediately, but CGF is looking for ways to litigate on our behalf and make that happen. One possible angle of attack to this is going after the roster, which will open up the possibility of more handgun options in California. If some of those handguns are available only with capacity 10+ magazines, then California will be infringing on our 2A right by not allowing us to keep arms of a particular, protected variety. Just a thought, not sure how useful that might be.

Either way, Pena v. Cid is challenging the roster, on hold for Nordyke and McDonald (see below).

Will I get a CCW ? No, I dont think so.

Already in the works: Sykes v. McGinness is on hold pending the outcome of Nordyke v. King, which is on hold pending the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago -- once McDonald goes our way, Nordyke absolutely will as it's asking essentially the same question. Once we have Nordyke, Sykes is in the bag, and you've got Shall Issue CCW. A year at most.

Will I no longer have to get an attorney to explain and decipher the flow chart ? No, I dont think so.

Once Chicago's handgun ban is found to be unconstitutional, a mirror lawsuit will be filed for California's assault weapons ban on essentially the same grounds: If Chicago can't ban a class of weapons protected by the Second Amendment, then neither can California. Again, a year at most.

Will I be able to possess a gun within 1000ft of a school zone ? No, I dont think so.

This one might be a little more difficult, but I'm sure the legal minds at CGF have something in the works.

Stag Schwag
05-25-2010, 11:17 AM
Loather - I hope you are right. I would love to have those rights back.

Flopper
05-25-2010, 12:16 PM
If some of those handguns are available only with capacity 10+ magazines, then California will be infringing on our 2A right by not allowing us to keep arms of a particular, protected variety. Just a thought, not sure how useful that might be.

Alan Gura has stated that the hi cap mag ban is probably one of the few restrictions that will not be able to be struck down because of 2nd Amend infringement.

But fear not, there is another route. . .

Maestro Pistolero
05-25-2010, 1:08 PM
Alan Gura has stated that the hi cap mag ban is probably one of the few restrictions that will not be able to be struck down because of 2nd Amend infringement.

But fear not, there is another route. . .

I would think that post incorporation, any firearm legally owned in another state, particularly one that is legal in most states, would be common enough for 2A "common use" protection. If that firearm so happened to only have standard cap magazines available. . . see where I am going with this?

press1280
05-25-2010, 1:22 PM
Alan Gura has stated that the hi cap mag ban is probably one of the few restrictions that will not be able to be struck down because of 2nd Amend infringement.

But fear not, there is another route. . .

I'd think this is something that definitely could be struck down. If reloading a pistol with 10 round magazine can be done in 2 seconds, it doesn't make sense to ban a 15 round magazine. Under strict scrutiny, the government would need to show that banning 15 round magazines would save lives and the law is narrowly tailored.

Flopper
05-25-2010, 1:53 PM
I would think that post incorporation, any firearm legally owned in another state, particularly one that is legal in most states, would be common enough for 2A "common use" protection. If that firearm so happened to only have standard cap magazines available. . . see where I am going with this?

I don't pretend to understand why the Great Minds think the 2nd doesn't protect hi caps.

They do however think that hi cap bans are constitutionally vulnerable via other avenues.

wildhawker
05-25-2010, 2:13 PM
Fixed it for you.

I dont want to sound like a Debbie Downer but I am not very optimistic.

As a resident of California I just dont see how I am going to get any practical gun freedoms or liberties back after this ruling.

Will I be able to have full access to hi cap magazines ? No, I dont think so. Yep

Will I get a CCW ? No, I dont think so. Yep.

Will I no longer have to get an attorney to explain and decipher the flow chart ? No, I dont think so. Yep.

Will I be able to possess a gun within 1000ft of a school zone ? No, I dont think so. Yep.

advocatusdiaboli
05-25-2010, 3:00 PM
It sucks some judges may not feel like doing their own research and analysis and wait for higher courts to make decisions for them.

There is another reason more important reason they do it: many judges have big egos and they don't want to issue a decision only to have it smacked down by SCOTUS in short order. In short: they don't want to be 'owned' by SCOTUS--it makes them feel small.

socalblue
05-25-2010, 3:10 PM
There is another reason more important reason they do it: many judges have big egos and they don't want to issue a decision only to have it smacked down by SCOTUS in short order. In short: they don't want to be 'owned' by SCOTUS--it makes them feel small.

It goes to a term called 'Judicial Economy'. Under the Federal Court guidelines a District or Appeals court will almost always put an issue on hold if there is a similar case or one with potential great effect on their case being decided at a higher level.

This makes sense in that the courts can use a single decision at the appellate or SCOTUS level to resolve multiple cases in the same way. This is potentially a huge benefit for the RKBA movement in that we don't end up with several poor decisions we have to go back & overturn (Wasted time & $$).

It's difficult but we need to believe that Gene & the crew know best when they tell us to be patient.

Eargasm
05-25-2010, 4:34 PM
Fixed it for you.


Will I be able to have full access to hi cap magazines ? No, I dont think so. Yep


Can you (wildhawker) elaborate?

bruss01
05-25-2010, 4:49 PM
I dont want to sound like a Debbie Downer but I am not very optimistic.

As a resident of California I just dont see how I am going to get any practical gun freedoms or liberties back after this ruling.

Will I be able to have full access to hi cap magazines ? No, I dont think so.

Will I get a CCW ? No, I dont think so.

Will I no longer have to get an attorney to explain and decipher the flow chart ? No, I dont think so.

Will I be able to possess a gun within 1000ft of a school zone ? No, I dont think so.

If you're talking about doing all the above with impunity 5 minutes after the McDonald verdice, you're probably right. But does incorporation (which we hope to get from McDonald) open the door to knocking these issues down one by one? Arguably yes, and within a reasonable time frame, not 50 years in the future, but more like 5 for most of them, perhaps 10 for some others. Most of us here will live to see the day, I'll warrant.

hoffmang
05-26-2010, 6:22 PM
Alan Gura has stated that the hi cap mag ban is probably one of the few restrictions that will not be able to be struck down because of 2nd Amend infringement.

But fear not, there is another route. . .

I *heart* other routes...

-Gene

383green
05-26-2010, 6:31 PM
I *heart* other routes...

I presume that McDonald doesn't need to happen before Other Routes can be taken. Are there other prerequisites that we're waiting for before the Other Routes can be taken to attack the magazine law? Are we talking "two weeks", or post-November-election, or after a bunch of other court cases, or what?

Just curious.

BigDogatPlay
05-26-2010, 6:33 PM
Hate to break it to you, but they already are.:)

How are they unencumbered now? It's a felony, they get caught, they go back. Nothing is illegal until you get caught applies, sure, but the fact remains that felon in possession is (IMO) a reasonable regulation that would pass even the strictest scrutiny.

The purist view, perhaps the libertarian one, is that there should be no prohibition on ownership, use and carry for a convicted felon. Such a state would truly be "unencumbered" and I am don't want to go there, and the SCOTUS won't either.

Not now, not ever.

hoffmang
05-26-2010, 6:57 PM
I presume that McDonald doesn't need to happen before Other Routes can be taken. Are there other prerequisites that we're waiting for before the Other Routes can be taken to attack the magazine law? Are we talking "two weeks", or post-November-election, or after a bunch of other court cases, or what?

Just curious.

Pure logistics. Without being able to fully explain myself, you'll see why pulling all the details together on the large-capacity magazine ban takes some heavy lifting...

Turns out the mag ban has been illegal since it was passed. It wasn't wise to challenge it before Heller though.

-Gene

Robidouxs
05-26-2010, 7:25 PM
Is this large-capacity challenge included in the "two weeks" of something else that is coming? Just curious, I hope it is though.

Pure logistics. Without being able to fully explain myself, you'll see why pulling all the details together on the large-capacity magazine ban takes some heavy lifting...

Turns out the mag ban has been illegal since it was passed. It wasn't wise to challenge it before Heller though.

-Gene

hoffmang
05-26-2010, 7:38 PM
Is this large-capacity challenge included in the "two weeks" of something else that is coming? Just curious, I hope it is though.

It's coming. Timing around McDonald coming down is going to get dicey in that the team of lawyers out there can only do so many things at once. I had hoped to file before McD, but again, some logistics are slowing things down.

-Gene

Robidouxs
05-26-2010, 7:43 PM
Thank you Gene, I'll patiently wait and be on the lookout.

It's coming. Timing around McDonald coming down is going to get dicey in that the team of lawyers out there can only do so many things at once. I had hoped to file before McD, but again, some logistics are slowing things down.

-Gene

383green
05-26-2010, 7:59 PM
Cool stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing how everything plays out, and I can see how the situation will get very fluid in the near future as we respond to whatever McDonald turns out to be.

KylaGWolf
05-26-2010, 11:23 PM
Post-McDonald, count on it.

Brandon is going to come to San Diego and party with us aren't ya.

KylaGWolf
05-26-2010, 11:31 PM
Pure logistics. Without being able to fully explain myself, you'll see why pulling all the details together on the large-capacity magazine ban takes some heavy lifting...

Turns out the mag ban has been illegal since it was passed. It wasn't wise to challenge it before Heller though.

-Gene

I love twisted logic like that. Sad thing is though is we have to even fight it in the first place.

KylaGWolf
05-26-2010, 11:32 PM
You know the most dreaded words right now " in two weeks"

press1280
05-27-2010, 3:40 AM
It's coming. Timing around McDonald coming down is going to get dicey in that the team of lawyers out there can only do so many things at once. I had hoped to file before McD, but again, some logistics are slowing things down.

-Gene

The hi-cap mag ban was part of the Heller II loss in DC recently. Will this affect what you're referring to?

RomanDad
05-27-2010, 7:33 AM
I am so anxious to hear their ruling. I hope there aren't any surprises. What do you think is Best Case & Worst Case we can expect?


I dont think there will be much in there re: 2nd Amendment. They'll defer to Heller on that issue since the cases are basically on point.

The more interesting issue will be if there is a split on Privileges & Immunity and Due Process.... My gut after listening to the oral is that the court will stick with Due Process... With maybe a couple of plurality concurrences for P&I as well.

Regardless... 95% incorporation happens.

hoffmang
05-27-2010, 5:33 PM
The hi-cap mag ban was part of the Heller II loss in DC recently. Will this affect what you're referring to?

No.

luvtolean
05-27-2010, 5:38 PM
Heh, this thread gives me more hope than I've had in a long time.

The 11+ ban and AWB on the ropes, my goodness.

They sort out the finances in Sacramento and I might quit shopping other states for our revenue base...

yellowfin
05-27-2010, 6:07 PM
The hi-cap mag ban was part of the Heller II loss in DC recently. Will this affect what you're referring to?
That wasn't a loss, it was a deferral. It will be appealed and won at a higher level.

grammaton76
05-27-2010, 6:35 PM
And... This is the consequence I would hope for should they do the above:

I would think that "they" would not want to make such a sacrifice, and I doubt the Legislature would create multiple "versions" of a CCW without risking being pounced upon for blatant EP violations.

Under the current mechanism, there's no need for multiple versions. The issuing authority can write as many restrictions as they want on a CCW.

The rich and famous would simply have no restrictions on theirs, and yours may read that it's only valid on a full moon, etc. Same form, same everything, different words for 'restriction' item on the back.

Window_Seat
05-27-2010, 8:56 PM
Can we get a flash/java countdown timer to McDonald, maybe for our signatures? Mine would be to June 29.:D

Erik.

dantodd
05-27-2010, 9:09 PM
I dont think there will be much in there re: 2nd Amendment. They'll defer to Heller on that issue since the cases are basically on point.

I think this is quite likely but.... Since it has been suggested that at least one justice (Stevens, I think) is interested in exploring the possibility that 2A be interpreted differently for the states than as against the federal government. If there is a concurrence or dissent that speaks to different levels of scrutiny for state laws vs. federal laws and the majority opinion disagrees there might be some depth of commentary on what singular level of scrutiny would apply in different aspects of the RKBA. Otherwise, I agree, Chief Justice Roberts is pretty well known to work hard at narrowing a decision as much as possible to create a strong majority.

KylaGWolf
05-27-2010, 9:50 PM
Under the current mechanism, there's no need for multiple versions. The issuing authority can write as many restrictions as they want on a CCW.

The rich and famous would simply have no restrictions on theirs, and yours may read that it's only valid on a full moon, etc. Same form, same everything, different words for 'restriction' item on the back.

You mean the normal citizen will more than likely have restrictions such as:

1. Only on the Second Tuesday of the Sixth week of the month between the hours of noon and 1pm the holder of this permit will be allowed to CCW.

2. Permit holder may only CCW if they are wearing a purple barney suit with the bozo the clown shoes and dancing the macirana with a Carman Maranda Chicita Banana hat.

3. The permit holder may only CCW may only carry if they use rubber bullets and an orange gun.

N6ATF
05-27-2010, 9:55 PM
3. The permit holder may only CCW may only carry if they use rubber bullets and an orange gun.

Remember, CA.gov hates colored gun people. Orange guns would have to be added to the roster.

383green
05-27-2010, 9:59 PM
2. Permit holder may only CCW if they are wearing a purple barney suit with the bozo the clown shoes and dancing the macirana with a Carman Maranda Chicita Banana hat.

http://runningteamflash.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Do-Not-Touch.jpg

HowardW56
05-27-2010, 10:01 PM
You mean the normal citizen will more than likely have restrictions such as:

1. Only on the Second Tuesday of the Sixth week of the month between the hours of noon and 1pm the holder of this permit will be allowed to CCW.

2. Permit holder may only CCW if they are wearing a purple barney suit with the bozo the clown shoes and dancing the macirana with a Carmen Miranda
Chicita Banana hat.

3. The permit holder may only CCW may only carry if they use rubber bullets and an orange gun.

Can only carry on his/her birthday at or within a 2 mile radius of 34° 58' 16.90" North and 115° 02' 59.45" West...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERYKzez97lA

Ding126
06-14-2010, 4:40 PM
I'm getting very anxious...

If we don't hear what we want, is ruled..Do we have a plan B?

Sheepdog1968
06-14-2010, 4:55 PM
I think Heller went further than expected and had some fairly blunt clear language in it. It made my attorney friend cringe at the lack of the elegance in the language. It wasn't as far as we would all like but all in all it clarified the 2nd amendment quite a bit. Based on this, I'm optimistic about this upcomming ruling in terms of what it will say.

Window_Seat
06-14-2010, 5:19 PM
I'm getting very anxious...

If we don't hear what we want, is ruled..Do we have a plan B?

Wait (and hope) for Nordyke.

Erik.

thayne
06-14-2010, 5:40 PM
Wait till its only Two Weeks away...:p

tada!

2009_gunner
06-14-2010, 5:50 PM
I'm getting very anxious...

If we don't hear what we want, is ruled..Do we have a plan B?

Yep. It will most fascinating to see the arguments for/against PoI.

I'm nearly as anxious for Palmer. How will the DC court try to wiggle out of "keep and bear"? There will be quite a few fundamental cases decided in the next few years.

It's really amazing that it has taken 234 years since the founding of the nation to clarify these issues.

bulgron
06-14-2010, 5:53 PM
It's really amazing that it has taken 234 years since the founding of the nation to clarify these issues.

That's because for most of the history of this nation we didn't have politicians and judges who can't read plain English, and so a court fight over this issue has never been necessary before.

wildhawker
06-14-2010, 6:12 PM
2009,

A savvy anti-gun judge would help us win low.

2009_gunner
06-14-2010, 6:25 PM
2009,

A savvy anti-gun judge would help us win low.

It would be quite amazing to see that amount of smarts and collaboration on the anti side.

Gray Peterson
06-14-2010, 7:31 PM
Under the current mechanism, there's no need for multiple versions. The issuing authority can write as many restrictions as they want on a CCW.

The rich and famous would simply have no restrictions on theirs, and yours may read that it's only valid on a full moon, etc. Same form, same everything, different words for 'restriction' item on the back.

That would violate Guillory v. County of Orange et al.

dunndeal
06-14-2010, 7:42 PM
We're like a bunch of kids waiting for Christmas morning,,,, kick back, have some Jack or Mary Jane or whatever it is that slows you down and just wait.

thayne
06-14-2010, 9:10 PM
We're like a bunch of kids waiting for Christmas morning,,,, kick back, have some Jack or Mary Jane or whatever it is that slows you down and just wait.

Yeah Im giving myself heartburn LOL

dantodd
06-14-2010, 9:30 PM
I think Heller went further than expected and had some fairly blunt clear language in it. It made my attorney friend cringe at the lack of the elegance in the language.

Your lawyer friend is one of the few that lacks appreciation for a Scalia opinion. :D

bulgron
06-14-2010, 10:09 PM
Your lawyer friend is one of the few that lacks appreciation for a Scalia opinion. :D

Actually, my liberal friends almost always show an amazing lack of appreciation for a Scalia opinion. :43:

grammaton76
06-16-2010, 2:55 PM
That would violate Guillory v. County of Orange et al.

Violation or not, it's standard practice.

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 3:05 PM
Standard practice = legal target practice. :43:

RunGunner
06-16-2010, 3:14 PM
I really want a good decision for gun rights but I also really want a good decision so my anti-gun brother in law will split a gut and have a seizure.

Is that so wrong ?

stix213
06-16-2010, 3:40 PM
We're like a bunch of kids waiting for Christmas morning,,,, kick back, have some Jack or Mary Jane or whatever it is that slows you down and just wait.

Checking the 2nd amendment forum each day feels like eating that next chocolate from your advent calender as a kid right now, in anticipation of whether Santa is bringing you what you hoped.

Ding126
06-16-2010, 4:08 PM
I really want a good decision for gun rights but I also really want a good decision so my anti-gun brother in law will split a gut and have a seizure.

Is that so wrong ?

I like it

Ding126
06-16-2010, 4:09 PM
I really want a good decision for gun rights but I also really want a good decision so my anti-gun brother in law will split a gut and have a seizure.

Is that so wrong ?

I like the thought

Pyrodyne
06-16-2010, 4:27 PM
Who has a party planned?

Rossi357
06-16-2010, 5:14 PM
I predict that after the 2nd amendment is incorporated, The Calif legislature will step up and rewrite the penal code. No court cases will be necessary. It will be legal to LOC and CC without permit. The GFSZ will be gone. You will be able to pick up your kids at school while LOC'ing. No class of weapons will be banned. Blood will not run in the streets and everyone will live happily everafter.
Just call me an optimist.

bulgron
06-16-2010, 5:16 PM
I predict that after the 2nd amendment is incorporated, The Calif legislature will step up and rewrite the penal code. No court cases will be necessary. It will be legal to LOC and CC without permit. The GFSZ will be gone. You will be able to pick up your kids at school while LOC'ing. No class of weapons will be banned. Blood will not run in the streets and everyone will live happily everafter.
Just call me an optimist.

:rolleyes:

Yep, and once McDonald comes back, the CA state legislature will finally recognize the claim I have on the Golden Gate. Want to buy it off of me? I'm selling it cheap.

:D

HowardW56
06-16-2010, 5:28 PM
I predict that after the 2nd amendment is incorporated, The Calif legislature will step up and rewrite the penal code. No court cases will be necessary. It will be legal to LOC and CC without permit. The GFSZ will be gone. You will be able to pick up your kids at school while LOC'ing. No class of weapons will be banned. Blood will not run in the streets and everyone will live happily everafter.
Just call me an optimist.


If you are going to spread that optimism, you had better have plenty of whatever you are smoking available to share...

Fjold
06-16-2010, 5:39 PM
You mean the normal citizen will more than likely have restrictions such as:

1. Only on the Second secondTuesday of the Sixth sixth week of the month, between the hours of noon and 1pm 1 PM the holder of this permit will be allowed to CCW.

2. Permit holder may only CCW if they are wearing a purple barney Barney suit with the bozo the clown Bozo the Clown shoes and dancing the macirana Macarena with a Carman Maranda Chicita Carmen Miranda Chiquita Banana hat.

3. The permit holder may only CCW may only carry if they use rubber bullets and an orange gun.

Fixed it.

CSDGuy
06-16-2010, 5:42 PM
I predict that after the 2nd amendment is incorporated, The Calif legislature will step up and rewrite the penal code. No court cases will be necessary. It will be legal to LOC and CC without permit. The GFSZ will be gone. You will be able to pick up your kids at school while LOC'ing. No class of weapons will be banned. Blood will not run in the streets and everyone will live happily everafter.
Just call me an optimist.
That's about the only realistic thing that will happen... Then again, stranger things could happen. California could end up taking the lead in this and be even better than Vermont, Alaska or Arizona is!

Lagduf
06-16-2010, 6:26 PM
I have nothing to add to this discussion other than, yes, I'm quite anxious to hear the decision.

Shotgun Man
06-16-2010, 8:18 PM
That's about the only realistic thing that will happen... Then again, stranger things could happen. California could end up taking the lead in this and be even better than Vermont, Alaska or Arizona is!

Assembly Member De Leon and (Coauthor) Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal will move to repeal AB962.

And CA will pass its own CA Firearms Freedom Act!

Man, these are good time ahead!

wildhawker
06-16-2010, 8:50 PM
Ca may indeed rewrite the PC (or parts of it, that is)...

ALSystems
06-16-2010, 8:58 PM
I can finally say the McDonald decision is only two weeks away for real.

I just only hope this decision was worth the wait :toetap05:

Anchors
06-16-2010, 8:59 PM
So we're waiting to hear the decision in Chicago v. McDonald, even though it was already decided right?
It just hasn't been released yet??

dantodd
06-16-2010, 9:04 PM
So we're waiting to hear the decision in Chicago v. McDonald, even though it was already decided right?
It just hasn't been released yet??

The court has almost certainly decided the case. At this point they are most likely putting the final touches on the opinions that will be published. It is possible, but we won't know if they have already completed the final edits and are simply holding their release until the end of their session.

Rest assured that the justices already know if we get incorporation, what the method of incorporation will be and how much, if any, attention is given to level of scrutiny.

The are many many attorneys, judges, and active cases waiting on tenter hooks for the release of the opinions.

We are not alone! Hopefully we will all know by the end of the month. (There is no law that I am aware of that says SCOTUS must rule before they end their session.)

curtisfong
06-16-2010, 9:15 PM
tenter hooks

Off topic: thank you for not butchering this phrase. The rapidly rising levels of illiteracy in this country (as seen through the lens of the internet) makes me weep.

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 9:19 PM
I predict that after the 2nd amendment is incorporated, The Calif legislature will step up and rewrite the penal code. No court cases will be necessary. It will be legal to LOC and CC without permit. The GFSZ will be gone. You will be able to pick up your kids at school while LOC'ing. No class of weapons will be banned. Blood will not run in the streets and everyone will live happily everafter.
Just call me an optimist.
Can I have some of what you're smoking, because that's GOOD stuff!

grammaton76
06-16-2010, 9:22 PM
Off topic: thank you for not butchering this phrase. The rapidly rising levels of illiteracy in this country (as seen through the lens of the internet) makes me weep.

You should've seen the expression on my face today when I read a post where "I am weary of this person" was actually used CORRECTLY for once! Some people know the difference between weary and wary. Either or both can be directed at a person, but usually these days people say the one and mean the other.

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 9:29 PM
You should've seen the expression on my face today when I read a post where "I am weary of this person" was actually used CORRECTLY for once! Some people know the difference between weary and wary. Either or both can be directed at a person, but usually these days people say the one and mean the other.
Major pet peeve of mine is when you (the figurative "you") use you spell-check, but of course, it's not context sensitive ;)

JDay
06-16-2010, 9:33 PM
That's about the only realistic thing that will happen... Then again, stranger things could happen. California could end up taking the lead in this and be even better than Vermont, Alaska or Arizona is!

You can get NFA firearms in those states.

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 9:38 PM
California could end up taking the lead in this and be even better than Vermont, Alaska or Arizona is!
I would not include Vermont in that list.

While the idea of Vermont carry is appealing, keep in mind that no permits ISSUED means:

No reciprocity (even with the Fed establishing 49-state recip)
No exemption from the Federal (or California) GFSZ


Unless we can get SCOTUS clarification on the Federal and California GFSZ laws, at this point, the "smartest" thing for the antis in Sacramento to do would be to go to Vermont carry and immediately revoke all existing permits.

BigDogatPlay
06-16-2010, 9:45 PM
I'm feeling more and more optimistic with each day that passes. I believe to a certainty we will get incorporation, and there might be a jewel or two buried in the decision that will bring a twinkle to the eyes of the Right People.

The only suspense for me is, assuming a win, which justice reads for the majority. If it's Justice Thomas or the CJ, it could be very interesting.

Cokebottle
06-16-2010, 9:58 PM
The only suspense for me is, assuming a win, which justice reads for the majority. If it's Justice Thomas or the CJ, it could be very interesting.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to laugh at the antis if it's unanimous and Sandra comes back out of retirement to read the opinion?

Joe
06-16-2010, 10:13 PM
So close. Can't wait.

N6ATF
06-16-2010, 10:23 PM
I would not include Vermont in that list.

While the idea of Vermont carry is appealing, keep in mind that no permits ISSUED means:

No reciprocity (even with the Fed establishing 49-state recip)
No exemption from the Federal (or California) GFSZ


Unless we can get SCOTUS clarification on the Federal and California GFSZ laws, at this point, the "smartest" thing for the antis in Sacramento to do would be to go to Vermont carry and immediately revoke all existing permits.

IANAL, but I remember reading something on here today about permitholders having a proprietary interest in renewing their CCWs... so I guess if CA went Vermont carry, the legal community would have to decide whether they want to keep CCW permitted but Sykes/14A compliant while fighting to strike down the fed GFSZ (again), or let CCWs burn and everybody carries whether the fed GFSZ is on hold via injunction, or not.

PhantomII
06-17-2010, 9:23 AM
No opinion on McDonald today.
Next possible date, Monday June 21

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/live-blog-opinions-6-17-10/

Kharn
06-17-2010, 9:58 AM
I'm feeling more and more optimistic with each day that passes. I believe to a certainty we will get incorporation, and there might be a jewel or two buried in the decision that will bring a twinkle to the eyes of the Right People.

The only suspense for me is, assuming a win, which justice reads for the majority. If it's Justice Thomas or the CJ, it could be very interesting.By Supreme Court tradition, Alito, Ginsburg and Roberts are the only three that could be writing the majority due to everyone else having written at least one majority opinion for that sitting.

yellowfin
06-17-2010, 10:19 AM
If I was as bad at procrastinating as SCOTUS, I'd show up for my dentist appointment next month sometime around the year 2159.

N6ATF
06-17-2010, 11:05 AM
If I was as bad at procrastinating as SCOTUS, I'd show up for my dentist appointment next month sometime around the year 2159.

Ha!

If it were up to me, it would be no more than 1 hour after the orals (enough time for the printing and web publishing to be done, including press releases to every wire service, and a nationwide law enforcement alert to be transmitted via DHS channel).

Government protection of criminals ends TODAY. All current and future laws having anything to do with guns are unconstitutional, as they are ignored by criminals, and followed by law-abiding citizens to their, often fatal, detriment.
Write or enforce gun laws and the full weight of the U.S. Marshals Service will fall down upon you. We hope you enjoy your 8x9' cells, you contemptible traitors.
Sincerely,
The Supreme Court of the United States

Maestro Pistolero
06-17-2010, 1:30 PM
Imagine if shall not be infringed WASN't right there in the amendment! At some point don't they HAVE to look at that strong language and say wait a minute, could no actually mean no? If that phrase doesn't scream for strict scrutiny, I wonder what on earth would?

BigDogatPlay
06-17-2010, 1:36 PM
By Supreme Court tradition, Alito, Ginsburg and Roberts are the only three that could be writing the majority due to everyone else having written at least one majority opinion for that sitting.

Didn't know that.... and I presume we could scratch one name of that short list, assuming we won.

:D

NightOwl
06-17-2010, 1:41 PM
Imagine if shall not be infringed WASN't right there in the amendment! At some point don't they HAVE to look at that strong language and say wait a minute, could no actually mean no? If that phrase doesn't scream for strict scrutiny, I wonder what on earth would?

You make a good point. I wonder if it's even possible to justify intermediate scrutiny around that language.

bulgron
06-17-2010, 2:18 PM
You make a good point. I wonder if it's even possible to justify intermediate scrutiny around that language.

The problem is, strict scrutiny would seem to imply that a felon who has been released from prison should have his gun rights restored, and SCOTUS is going to be anxious to make sure those guys can be denied their gun rights. As a result, they're going to waffle around looking for something less than strict scrutiny.

Which is BS.

But there you have it.

yellowfin
06-17-2010, 2:31 PM
Actually strict scrutiny could be applied with regards to restricting access for felons because that can be sufficiently narrowly applied. Perhaps a significantly narrower definition of felon might be in order, as currently there's so many technical violations with that label it's completely stupid.

ShootinMedic
06-17-2010, 3:40 PM
Can we get a flash/java countdown timer to McDonald, maybe for our signatures? Mine would be to June 29.:D

Erik.

Countdown To McDonald (http://www.7is7.com/otto/countdown.html?year=2010&month=06&date=29&hrs=08&ts=24&min=30&sec=0&tz=local&lang=en&show=dhms&mode=r&cdir=down&bgcolor=%23CCFFFF&fgcolor=%23000000&title=Countdown%20To%20McDonald)

Meplat
06-17-2010, 4:06 PM
Just FYI, I work for a party bus company now...

What's a party buss?

BlindRacer
06-17-2010, 4:07 PM
The problem is, strict scrutiny would seem to imply that a felon who has been released from prison should have his gun rights restored, and SCOTUS is going to be anxious to make sure those guys can be denied their gun rights. As a result, they're going to waffle around looking for something less than strict scrutiny.

Which is BS.

But there you have it.

Here is the problem! I fully support a felon having the right to bare arms once he/she has paid their time. As well as having restored voting rights and such.

The difference here, however, would be to actually send people to prison, not a criminal group meeting.


- My perfect prison system -

Absolutely no contact with other prisoners! You do not see anyone else. You do not communicate, and make plans for the outside, period. Meals are served to the cells. Only time a prisoner is removed from the cell is in shackles and blinded, and that is only to the infirmary. They do not get television and internet, period.

I haven't thought into it more than this, but if this were how the prison system were, then criminals would actually not want to be there.

How they are now, it's more like an initiation, gang meeting, segregation causing, and hatred building institute. They're allowed pretty much all, or more amenities than they'd have at home...all for free. How can this 'serving time' actually be considered a punishment? They need to be in their cell and think about what they did, and contemplate life, and what they are doing to destroy their own and others.


Now in order for this to happen, you'd have to get rid of all the stupid laws that put away otherwise law abiding citizens, who have no criminal intent.

Meplat
06-17-2010, 4:19 PM
SCOTUS does not have to take any case it does not want to take. If BHO can flip the court no 2A cases will be heard for a very long time.:43:


I think it will take a lot more than two more cases to invoke judicial economy. There are hundreds of infringements that will be punted to SCOTUS. Where SCOTUS' breaking point* is, however...

*Where they essentially say "**** IT ALL, every past, current, and future law having anything to do with guns is unconstitutional, now stop bugging us!"

Meplat
06-17-2010, 4:24 PM
Heller does not apply to NJ. Are you saying they actually site Heller? If so it's a promising signe. They have accepted the inevitable incorporation even before McDonald is settled.:43:


That's something I'm curious about. I've seen a few CCW denial cases(in NJ) that twist Heller by picking out the line about the 2A not granting the right to carry any weapon for any purpose, and then claim the "need" standard is constitutional.
If they keep getting these bogus rulings by twisting Heller(and then McDonald), will they start making broader rulings than they're asked for if they see the lower courts just flat out don't care if they get overruled time after time?

Meplat
06-17-2010, 4:28 PM
:rofl2:


Hate to break it to you, but they already are.:)

NightOwl
06-17-2010, 5:47 PM
Absolutely no contact with other prisoners! You do not see anyone else. You do not communicate, and make plans for the outside, period. Meals are served to the cells. Only time a prisoner is removed from the cell is in shackles and blinded, and that is only to the infirmary. They do not get television and internet, period.

I haven't thought into it more than this, but if this were how the prison system were, then criminals would actually not want to be there.

While I wholeheartedly agree that our prison system needs to change in significant ways in order to effectively provide punishment/rehabilitation/deterrent, what you're suggesting would result in antisocial lunatics being released into society. Total solitary confinement is very hard on the human mind, and when people got out of such a long term prison sentence they would be completely unable to cope with society.

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

I don't want to get into it at length here and risk derailing the thread, but I had to respond to that comment I strongly disagree with.

BigDogatPlay
06-17-2010, 5:59 PM
- My perfect prison system -

Absolutely no contact with other prisoners! You do not see anyone else. You do not communicate, and make plans for the outside, period. Meals are served to the cells. Only time a prisoner is removed from the cell is in shackles and blinded, and that is only to the infirmary. They do not get television and internet, period.

You're describing something that already exists save for the television. It's called super max.

Pelican Bay on the north coast is a super max facility and yet members of the Aryan Brotherhood, and other gangsters, have been able to successfully communicate with each other despite being celled up 23 hours a day. And they run criminal enterprises both inside and outside the walls.

The thing that sometimes doesn't enter into analysis is that when a person has nothing but time on their hands to think, they can be very imaginative. So locking them up like that, while it can serve one purpose seems to simply drive others.

Cokebottle
06-17-2010, 6:44 PM
If it were up to me, it would be no more than 1 hour after the orals
And I'm sure this is possible.
In most cases, they've read the briefs and know the ins and outs of the case.

I can't believe that a 10 or 20 minute presentation and short Q&A is going to change their minds, unless the lawyer is a complete buffoon (in which case, he won't be presenting a case to the SCOTUS).

Cokebottle
06-17-2010, 6:48 PM
Actually strict scrutiny could be applied with regards to restricting access for felons because that can be sufficiently narrowly applied. Perhaps a significantly narrower definition of felon might be in order, as currently there's so many technical violations with that label it's completely stupid.
Ditto.

Redefine "felony" to include only violent crimes.
Either create a new class of misdemeanor that can carry a sentence longer than 1 year, create a completely new class between misdo and felony.....
Or redefine the lifetime restriction, rather than including ALL felonies, only have it apply to violent felonies or felonies involving firearms.

And knock off this BS like California has with restricted misdemeanors and automatic lifetime prohibition for misdemeanor DV.

Cokebottle
06-17-2010, 6:51 PM
what you're suggesting would result in antisocial lunatics being released into society.
And that differs from the current system in what way?

Brand a person a "convict" and, especially in this economy, they'll never get a job.

chris
06-17-2010, 6:57 PM
i'm looking forward to this decision for one reason only. that we can finally shove the laws that have been forced upon us for so many years finally be on the chopping block where they belong.

i look forward to see and hear what the NRA and CGF have in store for this state and it's laws that have happered our rights for more that 20+ years.

Glock22Fan
06-17-2010, 7:27 PM
snip
Here is the problem! I fully support a felon having the right to bare arms once he/she has paid their time. As well as having restored voting rights and such.
snip


I fully support the right of felons, serial killers, lunatics and children (amongst others) to bare arms whenever they think it is warm enough.

And this isn't just me being a spelling cop, but IMHO we make ourselves look very silly when we make this mistake. Make the odd typo by all means, but please try to get this right.

N6ATF
06-17-2010, 7:36 PM
SCOTUS does not have to take any case it does not want to take. If BHO can flip the court no 2A cases will be heard for a very long time.:43:

Let's hope they deny cert to all 2A cases where we've won the last level of appeals. :p

yellowfin
06-17-2010, 7:42 PM
Actually I'd only ask that they strike down the NFA before taking another 70 year nap. The Miller decision was and still is just plain stupid, inexcusable, and indefensible.

Blackhawk556
06-17-2010, 8:34 PM
The court has almost certainly decided the case. At this point they are most likely putting the final touches on the opinions that will be published. It is possible, but we won't know if they have already completed the final edits and are simply holding their release until the end of their session.

Rest assured that the justices already know if we get incorporation, what the method of incorporation will be and how much, if any, attention is given to level of scrutiny.

The are many many attorneys, judges, and active cases waiting on tenter hooks for the release of the opinions.

We are not alone! Hopefully we will all know by the end of the month. (There is no law that I am aware of that says SCOTUS must rule before they end their session.)

if this is true then they are extremely good at keeping the decision under wrap. things always leak but their decisions are known when they want them known.
have past decision from SCOTUS even been leaked???:confused:

CaliforniaLiberal
06-17-2010, 8:44 PM
I'm wondering how we're going to keep track of all the lawsuits and appeals that will be filed in state, local and federal courts in the week after McDonald. Dozens? A couple of hundred?

advocatusdiaboli
06-17-2010, 8:54 PM
I am just going to wait for the decision--all this sound and fury signifying nothing is a waste of steam. I am not holding my breath or wringing my hands. It will be what it will be and I'll start my decision tree from there when it comes down. In the mean time, I think I'll go to the range this weekend and shoot. Have a good weekend all of you.

CrazyCobraManTim
06-17-2010, 9:03 PM
Wasted effort or not....this is one of four reasons I get up for in the morning! :)

I have the JD on ice....some firecrackers and bon fire ready!

Cobrafreak
06-17-2010, 9:22 PM
Should we have an "official" celebration event, picnic, meet and greet, shoot, etc., if the ruling most likely goes our way? This is a frakin' big deal if we win. The beginning of the end of being pushed into submission by the anti's.

tombinghamthegreat
06-17-2010, 9:47 PM
I would really like to see the slaughter house cases to be overturned and have the 2nd incorporate though P & I

thayne
06-17-2010, 11:46 PM
I would really like to see the slaughter house cases to be overturned and have the 2nd incorporate though P & I

Has SCOTUS ever overturned itself? I dont think thats going to happen.

Omil
06-18-2010, 12:05 AM
Finger crossed & we'll WIN!

wolf13
06-18-2010, 12:41 AM
Has SCOTUS ever overturned itself? I dont think thats going to happen.

Yes, they have overturned themselves before, though I find it unlikely they will on Slaughterhouse.

thayne
06-18-2010, 1:07 AM
Yes, they have overturned themselves before, though I find it unlikely they will on Slaughterhouse.

I think they should, but unlikely.

Alaric
06-18-2010, 1:43 AM
Here is the problem! I fully support a felon having the right to bare arms once he/she has paid their time. As well as having restored voting rights and such.

The difference here, however, would be to actually send people to prison, not a criminal group meeting.


- My perfect prison system -

Absolutely no contact with other prisoners! You do not see anyone else. You do not communicate, and make plans for the outside, period. Meals are served to the cells. Only time a prisoner is removed from the cell is in shackles and blinded, and that is only to the infirmary. They do not get television and internet, period.

I haven't thought into it more than this, but if this were how the prison system were, then criminals would actually not want to be there.

How they are now, it's more like an initiation, gang meeting, segregation causing, and hatred building institute. They're allowed pretty much all, or more amenities than they'd have at home...all for free. How can this 'serving time' actually be considered a punishment? They need to be in their cell and think about what they did, and contemplate life, and what they are doing to destroy their own and others.


Now in order for this to happen, you'd have to get rid of all the stupid laws that put away otherwise law abiding citizens, who have no criminal intent.

It's been done, and it's not Supermax, which isn't a completely solitary environment. It was Eastern State Penitentiary (http://www.easternstate.org/history/), which served as the model for our modern prison system. Inmates were originally kept completely confined and totally unable to communicate with anyone through the use of masks. Suffice it to say, the inmates were turned into raving lunatics, and not the kind who dance.

1JimMarch
06-18-2010, 3:44 AM
Overturning Slaughter-house and restoring the PorI clause is not off the table.

One of the Supremes who could write the majority opinion is Ginsberg. What if she does?

Put another way...let's say Ginsburg says to herself "OK, the gun nuts are gonna win this one no matter what. Why don't we take a huge step forward in all other civil rights areas while we're at it?"

She could very well convince at least two more of the anti-gunners to go along with her. She might even get the fourth, that crazy SOB Breyer to go along with her. He might see overturning Slaughter-house as a big enough legacy thing to make it worth swallowing his normal anti-self-defense screeching. Admittedly a long-shot, but...not impossible.

If Ginsburg has three Liberal votes including her own, she also has Thomas for a fourth and needs one more...and Kennedy might jump. If she has Breyer she doesn't need Kennedy.

Now, here's the cool part. To make this very weird coalition work, Ginsburg can't put too much anti-gun crap into the decision. Because if she does, Thomas will walk and without his vote, she probably doesn't have a majority. So the worst she can do is either leave the issue of scrutiny level alone completely (not likely because we DO have a case in front of us, not just a theoretical discussion) or she can, at worst, describe intermediate scrutiny which in my guesstimation wouldn't screw us too badly.

At that point it's not just guns on the table. It's property rights and the Kelo case, it's gay marriage, it's all sorts of stuff. It's a total re-think on civil rights issues.

As to "do they overturn themselves", the answer is "hell yes". The most obvious recent example was saying a ban on gay sex in private was constitutional, and then overturning that 13 years later in Lawrence. Again: only a 13 year separation.

In the Heller case the court strongly condemned Cruikshank, both in a footnote and in the positive citation to Charles Lane's 2008 book "The Day Freedom Died" in which "the day" was the day Cruikshank's final decision came down in 1876, effectively legalizing over 4,000 lynchings (that we know of) and countless other civil rights violations across generations. Cruikshank was based HEAVILY on Slaughter-house and was decided by most (all?) of the same "justices".

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2010, 5:05 AM
Overturning Slaughter-house and restoring the PorI clause is not off the table.

One of the Supremes who could write the majority opinion is Ginsberg. What if she does?

Put another way...let's say Ginsburg says to herself "OK, the gun nuts are gonna win this one no matter what. Why don't we take a huge step forward in all other civil rights areas while we're at it?"

She could very well convince at least two more of the anti-gunners to go along with her. She might even get the fourth, that crazy SOB Breyer to go along with her. He might see overturning Slaughter-house as a big enough legacy thing to make it worth swallowing his normal anti-self-defense screeching. Admittedly a long-shot, but...not impossible.

If Ginsburg has three Liberal votes including her own, she also has Thomas for a fourth and needs one more...and Kennedy might jump. If she has Breyer she doesn't need Kennedy.

Now, here's the cool part. To make this very weird coalition work, Ginsburg can't put too much anti-gun crap into the decision. Because if she does, Thomas will walk and without his vote, she probably doesn't have a majority. So the worst she can do is either leave the issue of scrutiny level alone completely (not likely because we DO have a case in front of us, not just a theoretical discussion) or she can, at worst, describe intermediate scrutiny which in my guesstimation wouldn't screw us too badly.

At that point it's not just guns on the table. It's property rights and the Kelo case, it's gay marriage, it's all sorts of stuff. It's a total re-think on civil rights issues.

As to "do they overturn themselves", the answer is "hell yes". The most obvious recent example was saying a ban on gay sex in private was constitutional, and then overturning that 13 years later in Lawrence. Again: only a 13 year separation.

In the Heller case the court strongly condemned Cruikshank, both in a footnote and in the positive citation to Charles Lane's 2008 book "The Day Freedom Died" in which "the day" was the day Cruikshank's final decision came down in 1876, effectively legalizing over 4,000 lynchings (that we know of) and countless other civil rights violations across generations. Cruikshank was based HEAVILY on Slaughter-house and was decided by most (all?) of the same "justices".


You tell the best stories.... I really like this one.

I'm going to be wildly optimistic and say that there's a 50 to 1 shot of this happening.

Ever since they tore down the Berlin wall I've stopped saying anything is impossible.

Are there any examples of something crazy and unexpected like this in Ginsburg's past?

yellowfin
06-18-2010, 8:14 AM
I'm really hoping our side will include in a followup case a means of eliminating the problem Wickard and Carolene allowing so many endless absurdities. At least half of our problem comes from not just a lack of an effective 2nd Amendment, but lack of an effective 9th Amendment to curtail the government's ability to make things ridiculously complicated and effectively destroy rights.

ElkHunterSL
06-18-2010, 8:23 AM
I've searched for the impact of this decision but I can't seem to find a complete legible explanation. Can somebody breifly explain what this court case is and how we already know the outcome before SCOTUS has even ruled yet.

SixPointEight
06-18-2010, 8:33 AM
When exactly do they adjourn? IE, when is the latest we'll have the decision, because that's when I feel like we'll get it.

Actually I'd only ask that they strike down the NFA before taking another 70 year nap. The Miller decision was and still is just plain stupid, inexcusable, and indefensible.

I don't think this will ever happen. Ask the average non-gun owner if silencers and automatic weapons should require permits, and most of them will say it should require being deployed in the military. However nice it would be for the NFA to be gone, I just don't see it.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2010, 8:42 AM
I've searched for the impact of this decision but I can't seem to find a complete legible explanation. Can somebody breifly explain what this court case is and how we already know the outcome before SCOTUS has even ruled yet.


We anticipate that the decision on McDonald v. Chicago will incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the States of the Union. Two years ago the Heller decision established that the 2nd Amendment protects the Right To Keep and Bear arms as an individual right but only applied to the District of Columbia. McDonald will establish that it applies in all of the states, and specifically that the Chicago prohibition on owning firearms (and other localities' prohibitions) is unconstitutional.

No outright bans, but some regulation allowed.

It's not so clear where the Supreme Court will draw the line on what is permissible regulation and what state and local laws violate the 2nd Amendment. Cross your fingers and pray brother.

We are so confident of the outcome because of the brilliant and well-educated gang of Constitutional Scholars that have been commenting and educating us here for the last two years and also because of our close attention to the questions asked and attitudes expressed by the Justices when they held oral arguments on McDonald last March. SCOTUS vote counting is one of the favorite pastimes around here. We're pretty darn sure of the main course to be served with this decision, but not so confident about the side dishes. We have hopes and dreams and special theories but we're all waiting to read the details.

That's the highlights. Lots more nuances and details.

ElkHunterSL
06-18-2010, 8:45 AM
Great Thanks. =)

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2010, 8:46 AM
When exactly do they adjourn? IE, when is the latest we'll have the decision, because that's when I feel like we'll get it.


Lots here agree with your guess. Generally big decisions have been handed down at the end of the term. Last day is June 28th so the consensus here is June 27th or 28th.

SixPointEight
06-18-2010, 8:50 AM
Lots here agree with your guess. Generally big decisions have been handed down at the end of the term. Last day is June 28th so the consensus here is June 27th or 28th.

Seems like the only way someone in politics would do it. And people tell students not to procrastinate haha. Anyways, I'll write that date down, thanks.

BlindRacer
06-18-2010, 8:55 AM
I fully support the right of felons, serial killers, lunatics and children (amongst others) to bare arms whenever they think it is warm enough.

And this isn't just me being a spelling cop, but IMHO we make ourselves look very silly when we make this mistake. Make the odd typo by all means, but please try to get this right.

I never said that all these people would be allowed that. If you are a lunatic (mentally ill, or phsycopath), then no guns. If you're a serial killer, then you should be put to death, or at least never be released. When a crime is serious like murder (purposeful), then they should never be out of prison. When lesser crimes happen, then a person can be rehabilitated (if the prisons were better), and become a part of society again. Like was said, there are way too many felonies that don't warrant such term, or restrictions. Such as all of our grandparents placing all their prescriptions into a monday through sunday container...that's placing a controlled substance into a non original container, which if I'm not mistaken is a felony. Get rid of the crap, punish the real criminals, and lock up and throw away the key on the psychos.

1JimMarch
06-18-2010, 9:13 AM
Um, guys?

Turn it around. Let's say somebody is leading a coalition for "pro gun/due process"...somebody like "John (ahemScaliacough) Doe".

Where's he gonna get five votes?

:eek:

Thomas is on record for PorI, bigtime. See also his dissent in Saenz. Without Thomas you don't have the original "Heller 5" justices. Who's going to take his place? A certain "wise Latina"? Yeah...I don't think so.

So somebody tell me: where are the five votes for the "NRA style" win?

Because I don't see 'em.

I think Kennedy will cave in and switch from DP to PorI before Thomas will cave and make the reverse switch. So now Thomas and Kennedy need three more. If they get one more "Heller" Justice, now they only need two Liberals (read as "Heller dissenters"). And if you're a Liberal, nailing Kelo, gay marriage, lots more...it's OH so tempting. Much, MUCH more fun than just letting Scalia and company steamroller you again.

If you're Ginsburg, Sotomayor...God, it's like Christmas in July (or at least June): a huge upraised middle digit to arch-conservatives, with a gun on it.

Show me where I'm wrong. Show me five plausible votes for NRA style due process.

Kharn
06-18-2010, 9:25 AM
Thomas does not have to agree with DP for the NRA's method to win, he can concur in the incorporation result while pushing P&I in his own opinon, without joining the majority opinon. That would be weaker overall result (as the CJ's opinion would then be a plurality, his opinion would be the one for the record books but with an asterisk next to it) than Thomas joining in the majority and then issuing his own concurring opinion that P&I would be better, but it is one possible way to win.

I think Thomas will join in the majority and issue a concurring opinion stating P&I is the proper way to do it, but Chicago's ban is so egregious it violates both DP and P&I.

BlindRacer
06-18-2010, 9:26 AM
Are you saying that you don't think McDonald will go our way?

elenius
06-18-2010, 9:27 AM
It seems much more likely that Thomas will sign on to the DP opinion and write a separate concurring opinion stating that it really should have been PorI, but oh well...

The liberals have nothing to win by getting PorI. They can already invent whatever rights they want through "substantive due process" (well, they could and would if they had a majority). If anything, PorI, being more tied to historical originalism, will limit liberal ambitions, and promote libertarian values, like freedom of contract, work, etc.

I hope I'm wrong though and we do get PorI incorporation, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Gray Peterson
06-18-2010, 9:50 AM
Are you saying that you don't think McDonald will go our way?

Never said that. The question is purely two questions: Who will write the decisions, and by what method will incorporation happen?

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2010, 9:57 AM
I've searched for the impact of this decision but I can't seem to find a complete legible explanation. Can somebody breifly explain what this court case is and how we already know the outcome before SCOTUS has even ruled yet.



We live in exciting and historic times. The Legal decisions being made now and in the next few years will change Gun Rights in the US and in California forever.


It may seem daunting to start learning Constitutional Law right now. But just spending a few hours a week for a month will soon get you up to speed enough to follow the discussions and arguments here.

There is a whole avalanche of legal cases on hold, waiting on the McDonald decision and a bunch more waiting to be started. For example Sykes v. McGuiness which is about making concealed carry available in California is waiting on the Nordyke case which is waiting on McDonald. A donation to the CalGuns Foundation will directly support these legal battles to restore California Gun Rights.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate



Some of the characters I most look to for informed opinions on CalGuns are:

hoffmang, bwiese, 7x57, wildhawker, Librarian Lots of others but these come to mind first.

JimMarch, just up the page here has great depth of education and understanding of Firearms Law but seems a bit of a wild mustang at times with an unrestrained and creative imagination. (Sorry Jim, JMHO)


Here's a tiny sampling of informative CalGuns threads:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=243550

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=275736&page=5

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=304319



Wikipedia is often a good place to get an overview of a new subject. It's wise not to leave it as your only source. Sometimes teenagers sneak in and make funny changes to the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago



One of the issues to be settled by McDonald is whether to use the Priviledges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment to incorporate or the Due Process clause. Turns out this could affect a large number of controversial legal issues all across Federal Law, not just Gun Rights.


A short course in US Constitutional Law as applies to McDonald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion


In a bit more than 5 words what I learned from a constitutional law class:

The Bill of Rights as written does not apply to state and local governments as it begins with "Congress shall pass no law...", this was upheld in US v. Cruikshank and other cases. A state could restrict speech, press, religion, perform search and seizures, and so on. It was only the Federal government you were really protected from by the amendments.

However, later the SCOTUS began "incorporation" where they'd mandate that parts of the bill of rights do apply to the states/local. Much of the incorporation was done by the liberal Warren court, and now many of our rights (speech and so forth) are protected at the state/local level. However, some still haven't been applied, including the second amendment. You know that 2A right you think you have? You don't, not really. That's why some towns can ban certain guns completely.

McDonald may be the case that incorporates the second amendment, meaning the states have to abide by it. Depending on how far they choose to go, many of our restrictions could potentially be lifted. So it is a big deal - as I understand it.


Here's one of the best tools I've found for searching both CalGuns specifically and the Wild Wide Web. Number 3 allows you to search CalGuns.net with less frustration.


http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6...An-Expert.aspx

Quote:
1. Explicit Phrase:
Lets say you are looking for content about internet marketing. Instead of just typing internet marketing into the Google search box, you will likely be better off searching explicitly for the phrase. To do this, simply enclose the search phrase within double quotes.

Example: "internet marketing"


2. Exclude Words:
Lets say you want to search for content about internet marketing, but you want to exclude any results that contain the term advertising. To do this, simply use the "-" sign in front of the word you want to exclude.

Example Search: internet marketing -advertising


3. Site Specific Search:
Often, you want to search a specific website for content that matches a certain phrase. Even if the site doesn’t support a built-in search feature, you can use Google to search the site for your term. Simply use the "site:somesite.com" modifier.

Example: "internet marketing" site:www.smallbusinesshub.com


4. Similar Words and Synonyms:
Let’s say you are want to include a word in your search, but want to include results that contain similar words or synonyms. To do this, use the "~" in front of the word.

Example: "internet marketing" ~professional


5. Specific Document Types:
If you’re looking to find results that are of a specific type, you can use the modifier "filetype:". For example, you might want to find only PowerPoint presentations related to internet marketing.

Example: "internet marketing" filetypept

tube_ee
06-18-2010, 10:00 AM
Off topic: thank you for not butchering this phrase. The rapidly rising levels of illiteracy in this country (as seen through the lens of the internet) makes me weep.

Shouldn't that be "The rapidly rising levels of illiteracy in this country (as seen through the lens of the internet) make me weep" or "The rapidly rising level of illiteracy in this country (as seen through the lens of the internet) makes me weep?"

--Shannon

CaliforniaLiberal
06-18-2010, 10:07 AM
Grammar Score!!!!!!!!!

ElkHunterSL
06-18-2010, 11:02 AM
CL...Wow! Lots of info to digest. Than you. I look forward to reading it thisa weekend.

Cokebottle
06-18-2010, 11:16 AM
Lots here agree with your guess. Generally big decisions have been handed down at the end of the term. Last day is June 28th so the consensus here is June 27th or 28th.
27th is a Sunday.

1JimMarch
06-18-2010, 11:36 AM
OK...call me a "wild mustang" if you want. But my sources are actual books: Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar's 1998 "The Bill Of Rights" or Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed" from 1984. Both cover the same material on how the 14th Amendment was really supposed to work. Of the two Amar's work is more important because he covers a lot more ground than just "gun stuff", he's got a lot more credibility in general circles than Halbrook and it's a lot more entertaining because Amar as a flaming Liberal HATED what he was learning about how the 2nd Amendment was altered by the 14th - but to his credit he wrote it anyways.

That book more than any other is the reason PorI is even up for discussion.

Both cover statements by the 14th Amendment's primary author John Bingham, leader of America's first civil rights movement in the post-civil-war period. He was dead clear about what he was doing: using the language of the Dred Scott decision to overturn that same decision.

The Dred Scott case of 1856 was a major cause of the Civil War. It wasn't just a pro-slavery case, it was a pro-racism case. It systematically proved (correctly, sad to say) that the US had always been a racist nation, that various founding fathers also supported some truly ugly racist laws (again, true!) and that therefore racism was constitutional in the US. In order to end racism, the Dred Scott case had to be overturned. The only way to overturn a US Supreme Court decision legislatively is to amend the constitution, and that's what the 14th tried to do.

The Supremes didn't like that one bit and in turn destroyed the 14th by pretending not to know what "privileges and immunities of US citizenship" were, first in Slaughter-house (decided 1873, listed as an 1872 case) and Cruikshank (final decision in 1876).

One problem: the reason the phrase "privileges or immunities" was used in the 14th was that the Dred Scott extensively defined it when listing the rights that blacks DON'T have. Here's the main section of Dred Scott doing the definition of the "PandI phrase" they used over 30 times throughout the decision:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, [B]and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. [emphasis added]

The part in bold has obvious implications. But look at the bit in italics - that's not part of the Bill of Rights, is it? This is more like "the BoR and then some" or "the traditional rights of free Englishmen". Or something else pretty damned expansive.

Both books cited above discuss this and quote John Bingham referring to this, claiming he used the language of Dred Scott to turn it back in on itself.

Y'all can call me a maverick if you like. But the US Supremes picked THIS case, with arguments founded on PorI, over two others that argued straight due process.

That's because the scholarly record is now solidly in favor of PorI incorporation, from both "right" and "left" sources. The scholarly record says that the Slaughter-house, Cruikshank and other cases were complete frauds on the US people and remain so to this day. And in Heller the recent court took the initial steps needed to admit to it and reverse it, by criticizing the crap out of Cruikshank by citing Charles Lane's book ripping Cruikshank a new orifice, calling it "The Day Freedom Died" in the title. Again: the Heller court cited that with APPROVAL and the dissent didn't argue otherwise.

Look...remember that horrible Silveira decision? The one where Judge Reinhardt tried to build up a whole new structure for gun-grabbing that wasn't based on Cruikshank the way the earlier Fresno Rifle and Hickman cases were? Why did Reinhardt try that? Because he knew Cruikshank was totally foul and would collapse soon. He saw it coming. What he built instead was on a junk foundation (Belesiles' "Arming America"!!!) and the Heller court tore it to shreds. But why did he try?

Because he knew change was coming. Cruikshank will fall, that's a given, but Cruikshank depends strongly on Slaughter-house for support. Go read Cruikshank, tell me I'm wrong.

N6ATF
06-18-2010, 11:41 AM
There is a whole avalanche of legal cases on hold, waiting on the McDonald decision and a bunch more waiting to be started. For example Sykes v. McGuiness which is about making concealed carry available in California is waiting on the Nordyke case which is waiting on McDonald.

IIRC, the Court said that Sykes is no longer dependent on Nordyke, and will be good to go right after McDonald.

Gray Peterson
06-18-2010, 12:35 PM
IIRC, the Court said that Sykes is no longer dependent on Nordyke, and will be good to go right after McDonald.

You would be correct, sir.

1JimMarch
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
Now here's an interesting question.

Let's say McDonald comes out at least decent - incorporation plus at least intermediate scrutiny.

You're Jerry Brown, the AG. (Who *might* possibly be reading this, so let's go with it.) Do you want to drag out a case like Sykes, toss more money into a sure-fire loser, or settle it out and fix CCW? Tell everybody "I did it to save money, the Supremes have spoken, let's just get on with it" or something.

Does that hurt or help going into the governor's race?

Gray Peterson
06-18-2010, 12:54 PM
Now here's an interesting question.

Let's say McDonald comes out at least decent - incorporation plus at least intermediate scrutiny.

You're Jerry Brown, the AG. (Who *might* possibly be reading this, so let's go with it.) Do you want to drag out a case like Sykes, toss more money into a sure-fire loser, or settle it out and fix CCW? Tell everybody "I did it to save money, the Supremes have spoken, let's just get on with it" or something.

Does that hurt or help going into the governor's race?

Except Jerry Brown isn't getting sued in Sykes. He chose not to intervene in the case when he was notified of a challenge to state law.

Shotgun Man
06-18-2010, 7:28 PM
Except Jerry Brown isn't getting sued in Sykes. He chose not to intervene in the case when he was notified of a challenge to state law.

He left the counties to themselves-- that sounds pretty good.

I don't recall this being on the Calguns Reasons to Vote for JB.

bulgron
06-18-2010, 8:02 PM
He left the counties to themselves-- that sounds pretty good.

I don't recall this being on the Calguns Reasons to Vote for JB.

There are a lot of reasons why a pro-gunner might want to vote for JB. They aren't all advertised for reasons having to do with the dominant political thought in this state.

Cokebottle
06-18-2010, 8:06 PM
There are a lot of reasons why a pro-gunner might want to vote for JB. They aren't all advertised for reasons having to do with the dominant political thought in this state.
Knowing how little people change in 35 years, I find it hard to believe that, outside of 2A, JB doesn't completely toe the line on the "dominant political thought in this state."

pullnshoot25
06-18-2010, 8:45 PM
I'm going to gun for Jim March and say if he were a horse, I would ride him 'til his hoofs bled... or something.

I WANT CHICAGO TO BE DECIDED ALREADY SO I CAN MAKE LIKE A NAIL AND GET HAMMERED!

hoffmang
06-18-2010, 9:03 PM
Sykes does not wait for Nordyke, but does have a 60 day wait from the issuance of the McDonald decision.

Sadly, Peña is held pending both McDonald and Nordyke.

-Gene

Scott Connors
06-18-2010, 11:57 PM
When exactly do they adjourn? IE, when is the latest we'll have the decision, because that's when I feel like we'll get it.



I don't think this will ever happen. Ask the average non-gun owner if silencers and automatic weapons should require permits, and most of them will say it should require being deployed in the military. However nice it would be for the NFA to be gone, I just don't see it.

I'd be satisfied if a) the 1986 ban on future legal MG's for civilian use is overturned; b) the CLEO signature is eliminated; and c) Fed law trumps State law on ownership so that those of us stuck here can enjoy the same freedom as those in other, less pathologically hoplophobic states. Friends in the NFA community think that the first two are not impossible.

1JimMarch
06-19-2010, 4:00 AM
I'm going to gun for Jim March and say if he were a horse, I would ride him 'til his hoofs bled... or something.

You know...that's not QUITE the weirdest thing anybody's ever said about me. But it ranks right up there...

:)

grammaton76
06-19-2010, 4:03 AM
c) Fed law trumps State law on ownership so that those of us stuck here can enjoy the same freedom as those in other, less pathologically hoplophobic states.

They really need to pick one... either:

1. Federal control: No state can be stricter than the Feds, as that's the absolute limit of decent gun laws.

2. State control: States may be stricter than the feds, or looser. Montana's guns, for instance, shouldn't be prosecutable on a federal basis. Right now they're sort of gray, if I recall, on points such as barrel length.

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 7:17 AM
I don't think this will ever happen. Ask the average non-gun owner if silencers and automatic weapons should require permits, and most of them will say it should require being deployed in the military. However nice it would be for the NFA to be gone, I just don't see it. When you say it that way, sure, but when you say hearing safety attachments or noise pollution reduction it's a different conversation entirely. Same for full auto, put in context of boat or rural property defense. Remove the stigma and substitute practicality and the problem is largely removed.

SixPointEight
06-19-2010, 8:43 AM
They really need to pick one... either:

1. Federal control: No state can be stricter than the Feds, as that's the absolute limit of decent gun laws.

2. State control: States may be stricter than the feds, or looser. Montana's guns, for instance, shouldn't be prosecutable on a federal basis. Right now they're sort of gray, if I recall, on points such as barrel length.

Good point, I agree with that.

When you say it that way, sure, but when you say hearing safety attachments or noise pollution reduction it's a different conversation entirely. Same for full auto, put in context of boat or rural property defense. Remove the stigma and substitute practicality and the problem is largely removed.
While I entirely agree, I'm a rational person. There's a lot out there that aren't. We need to educate the masses before a move like that can happen. After all, whenever they see full auto in a movie the jerk using the gun misses EVERYTHING and shoots up the whole building. Oh yea, aren't aren't 50BMG incendiary rounds heat seeking, so their only use is to shoot down airplanes?

pullnshoot25
06-19-2010, 8:50 AM
You know...that's not QUITE the weirdest thing anybody's ever said about me. But it ranks right up there...

:)

Just for you, good sir :)

command_liner
06-19-2010, 9:17 AM
1JimMarch,

Silveria was bad, but conditions have changed a bit. Nordyke gives us a chance
to toss Silveria, too.

The Google Books project gives us easy access to J. Ross Brown's history of
the adoption of the California Constitution. Until recently that was a hard book
to get. Brown's history is the official record, and specifically and completely
demolishes the AG's argument that there is no history of RKBA in the California
Constitutions.

Locklyer flat-out lied in Silveria. Due to the constriction of resources -- the
Brown book -- and because of incompetent council, he was not refuted in court.

At the Nordyke En Banc, the chief justice invited us to point this out -- I was
right there listening -- but we were not able to capitalize on the opportunity.
The reason we even need to argue Nordyke was because of screw-ups in
Silveria.

Hopefully we will get a good P&I win in McDonald, then use that to win Nordyke
and kill Silveria. Then get the AG (now candidate for governor) to issue a
blanket clarification, invalidating a ton of laws already on the books.

bulgron
06-19-2010, 9:57 AM
The Google Books project gives us easy access to J. Ross Brown's history of
the adoption of the California Constitution.

How do I get my hands on this book, exactly?

loather
06-19-2010, 10:02 AM
I WANT CHICAGO TO BE DECIDED ALREADY SO I CAN MAKE LIKE A NAIL AND GET HAMMERED!

I know you're only a couple miles from the house ... when the decision is handed down you're welcome to drop by and help drain the kegerator. :)

pullnshoot25
06-19-2010, 10:25 AM
I know you're only a couple miles from the house ... when the decision is handed down you're welcome to drop by and help drain the kegerator. :)

Right on! :) :) :)

Cokebottle
06-19-2010, 11:09 AM
They really need to pick one... either:

1. Federal control: No state can be stricter than the Feds, as that's the absolute limit of decent gun laws.

2. State control: States may be stricter than the feds, or looser. Montana's guns, for instance, shouldn't be prosecutable on a federal basis. Right now they're sort of gray, if I recall, on points such as barrel length.
2a and 10a are pretty clear....

2a says "shall not be infringed"
10a says "powers not granted to the Fed, nor prohibited to the states"
14a (will) incorporate 2a against the states (appeared to me that 10a already did that)

1911su16b870
06-19-2010, 11:29 AM
...Hopefully we will get a good P&I win in McDonald, then use that to win Nordyke
and kill Silveria. Then get the AG (now candidate for governor) to issue a
blanket clarification, invalidating a ton of laws already on the books.

+1 this thought is a makin me a tad misty eyed...:)

command_liner
06-19-2010, 12:16 PM
How do I get my hands on this book, exactly?
Use Google to find Google Books
Then use the search engine therein to look for J Ross Browne
Click on
REPORT OF THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF CALIFORNIA, ON THE FORMAT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1849

Page 47 is particularly enlightening.

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 12:53 PM
While I entirely agree, I'm a rational person. There's a lot out there that aren't. We need to educate the masses before a move like that can happen.
That can only happen when gun owners get out of the closet and start interacting with society on an equal basis rather than being afraid that their neighbors, employers, school board, etc. will find out and thus only speaking to each other.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 12:57 PM
Use Google to find Google Books
Then use the search engine therein to look for J Ross Browne
Click on
REPORT OF THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF CALIFORNIA, ON THE FORMAT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1849

Page 47 is particularly enlightening.

Page 47 of the California Convention (http://books.google.com/books?id=TBY4AAAAIAAJ&dq=j%20ross%20browne%20REPORT%20OF%20THE%20DEBATES %20IN%20THE%20CONVENTION%20OF%20CALIFORNIA&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=j%20ross%20browne%20REPORT%20OF%20THE%20DEBATES% 20IN%20THE%20CONVENTION%20OF%20CALIFORNIA&f=false)

BillCA
06-19-2010, 1:03 PM
command_liner,

Reading that excerpt (page 47) is enlightening.

REPORT OF THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF CALIFORNIA, ON THE FORMAT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1849 (http://books.google.com/books?id=iBhp2xbWgjYC&pg=PA152&dq=%22J+ross+browne%22+%22Report+on%22+debates+Cal ifornia+1849&hl=en&ei=XCEdTLH-JpHcNYj91ZIF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I will say that there were some ...er... unique concepts about constitutional precedence and construction expressed.

Rossi357
06-19-2010, 1:31 PM
This will be the toughest decision SCOTUS ever handed down. I suspect they will try to set parameters to avoid further litigation. If they don't, there will be endless litigation to determine what is reasonable. Maybe something in the line of federal pre-emption. Federal CC permit. OC and CC restrictions on sensitive places to carry. Many states and cities will put up every regulation possible and call it reasonable. Eye tests, physical fitness tests, psychological tests and such.
Interesting times we are living in....I love it.

Liberty1
06-19-2010, 1:57 PM
This will be the toughest decision SCOTUS ever handed down. I suspect they will try to set parameters to avoid further litigation. If they don't, there will be endless litigation to determine what is reasonable. Maybe something in the line of federal pre-emption. Federal CC permit. OC and CC restrictions on sensitive places to carry. Many states and cities will put up every regulation possible and call it reasonable. Eye tests, physical fitness tests, psychological tests and such.
Interesting times we are living in....I love it.

They will only address the issues before the court; incorporation and does the law (identical to DC's from Heller) violate the 2nd A. This will likely be a very narrow decision.

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 2:41 PM
Narrow but hopefully with a lot of contextual guidance.

1JimMarch
06-19-2010, 2:58 PM
Silveria was bad, but conditions have changed a bit. Nordyke gives us a chance
to toss Silveria, too.

Oh no. WAIT a sec here. The McDonald case (assuming we get incorporation) will IMMEDIATELY and forever destroy Silveira. McDonald also detonates Fresno Rifle and Hickman v. Block.

All three of those cases (and a massive pile of others nationwide, both appellate court and state supreme court) get tossed by McDonald because they're in direct conflict with Heller. Every - single - one.

Nordyke might be the final acknowledgement of that fact by the 9th Circuit, but it's not what accomplishes it. McDonald does.

And I can prove it: remember how Sykes got de-coupled from Nordyke and instead became dependent on McDonald? In other words, Sykes can go forward the moment McDonald comes down, doesn't have to wait for Nordyke? Now you know why.

As to "page 47"...holy CRAP. They...they were a pack of rampaging idiots!

They thought the core constitution overrides the Bill Of Rights? Really? Oh dear GOD, California gov't wasn't any better back then. No wonder y'all are so screwed!

command_liner
06-19-2010, 3:11 PM
Try and read the page 47 in the context of the 5 pages that surround it.
What the framers of the 1849 Cal. Const. said, as recorded by Browne,
amounts to
1) People have rights
2) Some of these rights, including RKBA, are secured by the BOR of the US
Const.
3) Since the BOR already secures the rights, there is no need to put such rights
in state constitutions. To do so would be redundant.
4) The State of California, which we are making up, will be bound by the BOR
of the US Const.

Sadly, this rather obvious line of reasoning is not actually included in the Cal.
Const. of 1849, or its replacement document. So the court felt free, in
Silveria, to say the founders of the state did not mean to have RKBA in California.
The Silveria court ignored the written documentation of the creation of Ca. Const.,
even though the official document specifically discussed the point being argued
in Silveria. Somehow the original intent and meaning of the people that wrote
the law did not concern the court.

Silveria decision had incompetent representation on the RKBA side, a megalomaniac
statist AG on the other side, and an activist anti-civil-rights court between the
parties.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 3:38 PM
Complete side issue, but if you go back two pages, it appears that even back in the late 1840's, there was an attempt to eliminate the death penalty, but they also had serious issues with "penal institutions" that were very expensive to run.

Sound familiar?

1JimMarch
06-19-2010, 4:14 PM
So it's yet again a case of people of that era being ignorant of Barron v. Baltimore, which had already said that the BoR doesn't limit the states.

We see cases like that elsewhere between the time Barron came down in 1833(?) and 1868 when Barron WAS finally overturned by the 14th Amendment.

press1280
06-19-2010, 5:02 PM
Oh no. WAIT a sec here. The McDonald case (assuming we get incorporation) will IMMEDIATELY and forever destroy Silveira. McDonald also detonates Fresno Rifle and Hickman v. Block.

All three of those cases (and a massive pile of others nationwide, both appellate court and state supreme court) get tossed by McDonald because they're in direct conflict with Heller. Every - single - one.

Nordyke might be the final acknowledgement of that fact by the 9th Circuit, but it's not what accomplishes it. McDonald does.

And I can prove it: remember how Sykes got de-coupled from Nordyke and instead became dependent on McDonald? In other words, Sykes can go forward the moment McDonald comes down, doesn't have to wait for Nordyke? Now you know why.

As to "page 47"...holy CRAP. They...they were a pack of rampaging idiots!

They thought the core constitution overrides the Bill Of Rights? Really? Oh dear GOD, California gov't wasn't any better back then. No wonder y'all are so screwed!
Add in Maloney, Bach v. Pataki, Burton v. Sills(NJ's controlling precedent case), Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board(MD's controlling precedent), Mosby v. Devine(RI's controlling precedent). All are based on either the "collective" 2A theory or non-application to the states.
I think the next move these courts will try now that their favorite son Cruikshank is dead is say "McDonald or Heller didn't SPECIFICALLY hold you could CCW/have AW/hi-cap mags so we can do what we want."

wildhawker
06-19-2010, 5:30 PM
Add in Maloney, Bach v. Pataki, Burton v. Sills(NJ's controlling precedent case), Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board(MD's controlling precedent), Mosby v. Devine(RI's controlling precedent). All are based on either the "collective" 2A theory or non-application to the states.
I think the next move these courts will try now that their favorite son Cruikshank is dead is say "McDonald or Heller didn't SPECIFICALLY hold you could CCW/have AW/hi-cap mags so we can do what we want."

Smart anti-gun judges will help us win low in the most ambiguous manner possible. Obtuse (or irrationally passionate) anti-guns judges will help us lose low, quickly. I strongly prefer the latter.

"Thank you for the loss, your honor. I look forward to citing you in my merits brief to the SCOTUS.

It's not all bad; you're going to be famous.

Sincerely,

Alan"

N6ATF
06-19-2010, 5:35 PM
Infamous.

hill billy
06-20-2010, 11:48 AM
Infamous.

"That means MORE than famous"

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 12:08 PM
egLjBsK9K8o

hill billy
06-20-2010, 12:10 PM
.

Thank you for getting that. :cool:

CCWFacts
06-20-2010, 12:57 PM
2) Some of these rights, including RKBA, are secured by the BOR of the US
Const.
3) Since the BOR already secures the rights, there is no need to put such rights
in state constitutions. To do so would be redundant.
4) The State of California, which we are making up, will be bound by the BOR
of the US Const.

They didn't realize that the BoR didn't apply to the states at the time? How could they not know that?

So it's yet again a case of people of that era being ignorant of Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore), which had already said that the BoR doesn't limit the states.

We see cases like that elsewhere between the time Barron came down in 1833(?) and 1868 when Barron WAS finally overturned by the 14th Amendment.

How is that possible that legislators (presumably people familiar with law and government structures) would be so ignorant about that?

press1280
06-20-2010, 6:07 PM
They didn't realize that the BoR didn't apply to the states at the time? How could they not know that?



How is that possible that legislators (presumably people familiar with law and government structures) would be so ignorant about that?

There was a writing by an influental person(the name escapes me right now) who said the language of the 2A seemed to be of a nature to bind both federal and state courts. Some of the state courts seemed to hold to this, even after Barron.

Cokebottle
06-20-2010, 6:48 PM
There was a writing by an influental person(the name escapes me right now) who said the language of the 2A seemed to be of a nature to bind both federal and state courts.
IMHO, the wording of the 10A should have covered it, even without the 14th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Coupling that with 2A, 2A does not grant the Fed the power to restrict arms, and it pretty specifically states "shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say "shall not be infringed by the Federal Government".... but again, referring to the 10th, the Constitution GRANTS power to the Fed, therefore, I would interpret any prohibition to be aimed at the States.


That statement grants a LOT of power to the states, but it seems quite apparent that prohibitions listed in the Constitution were to apply to the States.

KylaGWolf
06-20-2010, 6:58 PM
Given that we have a very anti-RKBA Legislature & a passive Governor, I have some concerns post McDonald.

Backlash from Saldana & her cronies cramming in every piece of ant-gun legislation possible. With several termed out & others losing in the primaries they have zero to lose. No threat of veto either. Could be worse after the general election, esp if Whitman wins.

Hope I'm wrong.

After last's nights event (its in the off topic thread) I am going to start being the worst thorn in Saldana's side I think. And I may be a big thorn in Witman's side too. And there is a chance of veto although I am not holding my breath.

IrishPirate
06-20-2010, 6:59 PM
I've had to tell so many people in the past few days about the McDonald case it's rediculous!!! self proclaimed gun enthusiests who know nothing about this case at all seem to be EVERYWHERE!!!!

I think that the worst case is that nothing changes. the 2A isn't incorporated, and we are stuck with the crappy laws we have now, plus we deal with the worse ones that are in waiting should incorporation be lost.

I think the best case is that we get incorporation, and the language of the decision is such that by this time next year, we can all go out and load up on AR's, AK's, .50BMG's, Uzi's, Tech Nines, MP5's and every other beautiful piece of lead pumping machinery our little hearts think is necessary, and we can walk around town with them openly or concealed and have there not be a damn thing anybody can do about it!

But what i think will most likely happen is that we'll get incorporation....the legal battles will be fought....we'll get rid of the AWB and the roster in PRK, and we'll have some system of CCW issuance that doesn't discriminate against anyone who wants one and has a clean record, BUT we'll still deal with day to day hassles from tacticool cops and anti-gun idiots. Legislation will continue to be considered and probably passed by the state to challenge and bypass the ruling, and we'll struggle to keep our foot hold on our freedoms.

Call me skeptical, but I don't think that incorporation will be the sweeping hand of justice that many are making it out to be. There is always someone looking for loopholes in laws, and no one knows stupid loopholes like anti-gunners. I think that McDonald will be a battle winner, not a war ender.

Window_Seat
06-20-2010, 7:54 PM
...Call me skeptical, but I don't think that incorporation will be the sweeping hand of justice that many are making it out to be. There is always someone looking for loopholes in laws, and no one knows stupid loopholes like anti-gunners. I think that McDonald will be a battle winner, not a war ender...

Doesn't this all depend on the level of scrutiny? I'm still a bit dumb on levels of scrutiny.

Erik.

hill billy
06-20-2010, 8:01 PM
Call me skeptical, but I don't think that incorporation will be the sweeping hand of justice that many are making it out to be. There is always someone looking for loopholes in laws, and no one knows stupid loopholes like anti-gunners. I think that McDonald will be a battle winner, not a war ender.

Every win, EVERY win, is still a win. There is no such thing as a war ender at this point. Look up the battle of Trenton in the revolutionary war. A small battle really, but a huge moral defeat for the British, a turning point in the war. That's a we really need, a turning point, something to work from.

advocatusdiaboli
06-20-2010, 8:05 PM
That can only happen when gun owners get out of the closet and start interacting with society on an equal basis rather than being afraid that their neighbors, employers, school board, etc. will find out and thus only speaking to each other.

This kind of self-flagellation needs to stop. Our opinions as firearms advocates, even collectively, to the anti-gunners and moderates do not matter. The people don't make laws nor enforce them and they sure don't influence them. The majority is against health care reform, the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the bailouts--all prosper despite this. The majority are pro-choice, yet abortion bans continue to sail through some legislatures.

Politicians (and therefore the executive and legislative branches) only care about "the people" around election time and even then only their constituents--not the rest of us. The rest of the time they only care about the opinions of donors and lobbyists because in reality that's where their re-elections are made or broken. Voters are easily influenced by sound bites and deceptive ads which just take money and a willingness to "shape" the truth--this has been proven time and again--Williew Horton, Swift Boating, etc., etc. Meg Whitman bought her way into the Repulican nomiation as did Fiorina--both have zero political experience, no idea how legislation should be crafted or how it works, nor any ideals regarding democracy and a republic as far as I can tell--including RKBA. The last time we elected an neophyte Republican politican with no track record nor any clue about government to high office, we got our current governor and the ammo ban. Didn't we learn any thing? At least Brown has the requisite education and experience to back his candidacy up.

Furthermore, if the politics of fear and ignorance were easily confronted and defeated by facts and reason, Sarah "I can see Russia from my house and don't believe in dinosaurs" Palin would be but a footnote in the political scene instead of a Fox commentator and leader of a growing faction of her party exasperating the RNC and pleasing the Democratic leadership.

No. We are better off focusing our resources and attacks at critical points in the legislative, executive, and judical processes where concentrated force yields amplified results.

BillCA
06-20-2010, 10:28 PM
This will be the toughest decision SCOTUS ever handed down. I suspect they will try to set parameters to avoid further litigation. If they don't, there will be endless litigation to determine what is reasonable. Maybe something in the line of federal pre-emption. Federal CC permit. OC and CC restrictions on sensitive places to carry. Many states and cities will put up every regulation possible and call it reasonable. Eye tests, physical fitness tests, psychological tests and such.
Interesting times we are living in....I love it.

Like others said, the court will likely only decide the case at hand in a narrow ruling that focuses strictly on which either Due Process or P&I is the proper mechanism. I see Due Process being the winner to avoid opening Fibber McGee's Closet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_McGee_and_Molly#The_Closet) by the courts.

I think the next move these courts will try now that their favorite son Cruikshank is dead is say "McDonald or Heller didn't SPECIFICALLY hold you could CCW/have AW/hi-cap mags so we can do what we want."
There's a grain of truth here. But it's the lawyers who will argue the lack of specificity, not the courts. The courts may go along with it, but only so far.

I tend to think Rossi357 has is close to right, above. Anti-rights groups will attempt to proclaim that because the court has never ruled that testing [psychological, legal knowledge, visual acuity, physical ability, etc.] is specifically not allowed, they are able to require such a test. But this will not fly in face of challenges of prior-restraint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint).

It'll be challenges to existing laws - especially the low hanging fruit¹ - that will help set the scope of the 2A right. For example, the Illinois "Firearms Owner Identification Card" (FOID) is ripe for challenge, along with California's HSC, and eastern state laws requiring a purchase or possession permit. All of these form a version of prior restraint and/or amount to a taxation of a right by requiring a fee to be paid. Once struck down by a federal circuit (and either not appealed or turned down by SCOTUS) these decisions will form the framework of the 2A right².

Winning a considerable number of cases against existing laws will start drawing the lines where Congress and the States cannot go. As they get boxed in, the grass-roots lobbying can really begin. And those efforts should be redirecting legislation so that it punishes crimes in proportion to their violence, scope or history³.

¹ Low hanging fruit are those anti-gun laws that are easily shown to be unconstitutional. Extra fees/taxes to buy/own guns or ammo, 1-gun-a-month laws, laws prohibiting mere possession by minors, carry prohibitions, etc.
² Laws ruled unconstitutional will start marking the types of laws that are "off limits" to legislative bodies. The more of these we win, the fewer options they have to strangle the right.
³ Like most other crimes, we should only punish for actual misdeeds with a firearm where the offender should have clearly known the actions were illegal. And punishment should be proportional to the mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) of the offender and the scope of the offense. For example, we'd punish someone carrying a gun in a "school gun free zone" because they were 16 ft inside the 1000ft zone far less than someone attempting to enter a known off-limits gov't buliding (court or jail) with a gun. Likewise someone target shooting on BLM land 100 ft inside an unmarked restricted zone (due to poor navigation or mis-ID'd landmarks) is punished far far less than someone shooting up a McDonalds.

Paladin
06-20-2010, 10:33 PM
IIRC, next Monday is the most likely day for the McDonald opinion to be released. But from now until the end of the month, what other days will SCOTUS also release opinions?

CSDGuy
06-20-2010, 10:35 PM
Thursday, or Monday... I think. Or whatever other dates the Court desires.

the_natterjack
06-21-2010, 6:33 AM
orders and opinions this morning at 7:00 pacific? could it be today? did we win yet?

Brian

yellowfin
06-21-2010, 6:47 AM
I know they have to spend a lot of time wording the decisions carefully, and it should work in our favor, and we're not the only decision out there by any means, but could they at least acknowledge that we've been waiting if not actually apologize? Seriously, ANYONE else at work that keeps people dangling at least acknowledges that it's tough on those people and offers them some empathy.

Roadrunner
06-21-2010, 7:06 AM
So, I'm thinking next Monday or Tuesday will be the day, is that right? Or will it be another two weeks ?

tango-52
06-21-2010, 7:18 AM
They did not release their McDonald v. Chicago opinion today. Maybe Thursday. Or next Monday.

hill billy
06-21-2010, 7:19 AM
No decision today according to SCOTUSblog.

bulgron
06-21-2010, 7:39 AM
I know they have to spend a lot of time wording the decisions carefully, and it should work in our favor, and we're not the only decision out there by any means, but could they at least acknowledge that we've been waiting if not actually apologize? Seriously, ANYONE else at work that keeps people dangling at least acknowledges that it's tough on those people and offers them some empathy.

You want empathy from the courts? How cute it that?

Dreaded Claymore
06-21-2010, 8:14 AM
You want empathy from the courts? How cute it that?

Obama and Sotomayor said they'd give us empathy. It could happen.

bone1
06-21-2010, 9:08 AM
This is less than encouraging:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/06/countdown_to_ch.php

The custom is that each Justice gets at least one opinion from each two-week "sitting" on arguments. Coming into today's opinion releases, there were three opinions left from the sitting in which the Chicago case was argued, and three Justices who hadn't written an opinion from it. Today's four opinions included one by CJ Roberts, taking him out of the running. We have two Justices left -- Alito and Ginsburg -- and two opinions left, Chicago and Skilling v. US. The Court is scheduled to release more opinions on Thursday and Monday, a week from today.

Two cases left and two justices, Alito and Ginsburg. I'd be worried if Ginsburg writes McDonald.

wolf13
06-21-2010, 9:25 AM
This is less than encouraging:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/06/countdown_to_ch.php



Two cases left and two justices, Alito and Ginsburg. I'd be worried if Ginsburg writes McDonald.

I wouldn't take that as gospel. In a case as big as this, Roberts may write it anyway to leave his mark on the court.

yellowfin
06-21-2010, 9:34 AM
Ok, empathy is the wrong word. Courtesy was more what I meant.

1JimMarch
06-21-2010, 10:01 AM
If Ginsburg writes it, it'll be PorI. Again: not impossible.