PDA

View Full Version : Is McDonald really going to change anything?


misterjake
04-29-2010, 10:15 PM
Will McDonald really me a monumental case like Brown v. Board, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Kormatsu v US? I hate to say it but I think SCOTUS is going to give states large discression on their gun laws. Maybe we'll see no absolute ban on firearms Allowed but this case I think is too hyped up by the gun community. I hope I'm wrong but at least I won't be disappointed. We're putting too many chips in "hope" of SCOTUS siding with us. Even if the court sided with us, do you really think the anti's will give up? They'll be worse than George Wallace in front of the high school.

misterjake
04-29-2010, 10:17 PM
It just seems the anti's fear will always scream louder than our casual common sense.

dantodd
04-29-2010, 10:23 PM
I know that you are new here but please look around. There are a threads about what McDonald does and doesn't mean. Do you really think that people like the NRA, CGF and all the anti-gun groups would be constantly beating the drums if this weren't an important case?

2009_gunner
04-29-2010, 10:24 PM
It seems that McDonald will mostly be a tool. I think the most monumental case for gun rights will be Palmer (release it already!) or Sykes.

dantodd
04-29-2010, 10:28 PM
It seems that McDonald will mostly be a tool. I think the most monumental case for gun rights will be Palmer (release it already!) or Sykes.

the most monumental was Heller

2009_gunner
04-29-2010, 10:29 PM
the most monumental was Heller

good point!

Window_Seat
04-29-2010, 10:48 PM
McDonald doesn't get rid of everything all at once overnight, it leads to the first case, which leads to the next, and so on. The anti's are already panicking, and it shows with CA coming up with more GC legislation.

Once the McDonald opinion is released (providing it's in our favor), then comes:

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.

AndrewMendez
04-29-2010, 11:01 PM
McDonald doesn't get rid of everything all at once overnight, it leads to the first case, which leads to the next, and so on. The anti's are already panicking, and it shows with CA coming up with more GC legislation.

Once the McDonald opinion is released (providing it's in our favor), then comes:

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.

This. Essentially case after case after case of unconstitutional law will be smacked down!

artherd
04-30-2010, 12:14 AM
In a word - yes.

Havoc70
04-30-2010, 5:21 AM
In a word - yes.

In two words: Hell Yes :).

loather
04-30-2010, 7:30 AM
The answer to your question is yes.

BigDogatPlay
04-30-2010, 7:51 AM
McDonald will absolutely be a landmark, regardless of the minutia buried in the decision.

In a more practical sense, it will be the breaker bar to complement and leverage the pipe wrench that is Heller. It's going to force open a lot of clogged pipes for us.

Gio
04-30-2010, 7:56 AM
In a word - yes.

In two words: Hell Yes :).

5 Words

You Bet Your A** YES!!!!! :43:

-Gio

MichaelKent
04-30-2010, 8:39 AM
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.

Barkoff
04-30-2010, 10:16 AM
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.

Very well explained, thank you.

POLICESTATE
04-30-2010, 10:18 AM
It just seems the anti's fear will always scream louder than our casual common sense.

One would hope they would scream themselves hoarse one of these days and we could get some peace and quiet.

SixPointEight
04-30-2010, 10:30 AM
McDonald doesn't get rid of everything all at once overnight, it leads to the first case, which leads to the next, and so on. The anti's are already panicking, and it shows with CA coming up with more GC legislation.

Once the McDonald opinion is released (providing it's in our favor), then comes:

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.
This. Once the roster's gone, and we have Shall-Issue CCW, if we get standard cap mags I would be almost happy...kill the AWB and THEN I'll be happy.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-30-2010, 10:33 AM
I read the entire transcript yesterday. You can find it here, if you like:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

The Lawyer for the City of Chicago sounds like an idiot and they backed him into a corner on multiple occasions. I think we're going to win this case but I honestly don't know how much good it's going to do here, in California. If you are thinking that this is going to undo the "safe handgun list" and assault weapons bans, I am thinking that you might be disappointed. They kept on discussing 'reasonable regulations' throughout the entire oral argument and it sounds as if they will still be able to regulate firearms to a certain degree. Even Scalia mentioned this (and as far as I can tell, he's pretty 2A friendly).

Personally, I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll hope for the best but I'm still expecting the worst. :(

IrishPirate
04-30-2010, 10:54 AM
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.

this is one of the best explanations i've read......well done!

To help answer the question: NO, McDonald isn't going to be the case that automatically overturns every anti gun law. It will be the case that says whether the states have to abide by the second amendment and any cases that are decided AFTER McDonald will have to follow that ruling.

McDonald will be the anchor point that we build from. After all, no lower court has the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. What they say goes, so if they say the States can't restrict our gun rights....then the floodgates for lawsuits against anti gun legislation will be opened.

ONE THING THAT I FEAR MAY HAPPEN....if SCOTUS incorporates the 2A, there will be a small amount of panic amid all the celebrating. The anti gun groups will find a way to reach out to the gun fearing community and convince enough people that what they are doing falls under the "reasonable restriction" guidelines for any law. They'll push for total registration of firearms because it will be "reasonable" to know who has what. The gun fearing will agree and will turn into anti gun drones. If they are smart about it (and lets face it, they are) they'll push the AWB, hi-cap ban, and roster as "reasonable restrictions for the good of the public" and convince the liberal courts to uphold the current laws as "reasonable".

we all know that nothing the anti's do resembles "reason", but if the wording of the McDonald decision allows for any small bit of "reasonable restrictions", this will be the platform that the anti's stand on and scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" once again...

let's hope that SCOTUS has the foresight to see that happening and they word their decision in a more (hot) air tight way

Stealth
04-30-2010, 10:54 AM
McDonald will be a rather large piece to a bigger puzzle of a picture. I see it being a major piece and it will allow for other pieces to be placed.

Its like a big tug ole war. The rope is our Right to Bear arms and McDonald will be a good strong tug in our favor. But I highly doubt it will cause the other side to fall into the mud.

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 11:38 AM
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.

Nicely done but I'd like to add that it is the 14th Amendment which was meant to incorporate rights such as the RKBA against the states and SCOTUS is only now taking this seriously in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 11:50 AM
I read the entire transcript yesterday. You can find it here, if you like:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

The Lawyer for the City of Chicago sounds like an idiot and they backed him into a corner on multiple occasions. I think we're going to win this case but I honestly don't know how much good it's going to do here, in California. If you are thinking that this is going to undo the "safe handgun list" and assault weapons bans, I am thinking that you might be disappointed. They kept on discussing 'reasonable regulations' throughout the entire oral argument and it sounds as if they will still be able to regulate firearms to a certain degree. Even Scalia mentioned this (and as far as I can tell, he's pretty 2A friendly).

Personally, I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll hope for the best but I'm still expecting the worst. :(

Again, McDonald will not directly fix much of anything. You have to look at additional cases which are pending such as Sykes, Nordyke, etc. which are thought likely to result in a win for our side. McDonald, Federal law, and case law will give significant leverage to restore our RKBA.

No one is infallible, but there are very knowledgeable people who think the handgun roster will have to be made much more rational, that "Shall Issue" CCW is quite probable, and the list goes on. Some of the most onerous stuff should go away within 6-18 months and the fight on other aspects will take years.

People need to think of this as a political and legal war. You do your best to choose the terrain, the order of battle, and the time of battle and you win by having better intel, maneuver, and fires. When the enemies of the RKBA offers battle you should always be reluctant to engage because you should assume they are bringing their strength against your weakness. It should always be your goal to bring your strength against their weakness.

This will not happen as rapidly as I would wish. . .

One other note is that a huge part of the battle in the long-run will be determining what kind of scrutiny will be used. If we get strict scrutiny it will make things far easier to exercise our rights. Intermediate scrutiny will mean a much tougher fight and likely an incomplete restoration of our rights. It could also be that another form of scrutiny will be developed through various cases which will potentially add another layer of complication.

GuyW
04-30-2010, 12:06 PM
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...",


Yeah - that's the story promulgated by lawyers.

The facts say differently: as reafffirmed in Heller, the Second Amendment is a right that precedes the BOR, Constitution, and is not reliant in any way upon those documents.

Unsaid but TRUE - the RKBA preceded the states, or even the arrival of Englishmen men in America.

The states / ALL GOVERNMENT in the US were bound at their conception by the RKBA....

and I'm damn sure that was the Founders' position and understanding...

BTW, the answer to the OP is "yes"...
.

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 12:43 PM
Yeah - that's the story promulgated by lawyers.

The facts say differently: as reafffirmed in Heller, the Second Amendment is a right that precedes the BOR, Constitution, and is not reliant in any way upon those documents.

Unsaid but TRUE - the RKBA preceded the states, or even the arrival of Englishmen men in America.

The states / ALL GOVERNMENT in the US were bound at their conception by the RKBA....

and I'm damn sure that was the Founders' position and understanding...

BTW, the answer to the OP is "yes"...
.

I think everyone here agrees that there is an inherent right to self-defense and therefore to keep and bear arms. I think there would be broad agreement that the 2nd Amendment was intended to recognize that right rather than to initiate/institute it.

The current discussion and most of those related to it are in the context of current U.S., state, and case law. Unfortunately we are currently in the sorry state of affairs where our RKBA is not properly recognized by our state, our federal government, SCOTUS, or the general population. In that context the above discussion has been largely correct.

This is why I generally prefer to talk about the CGF/CGN fight as one to restore or recognize our RKBA rather than one to have the right granted to us.

Super Spy
04-30-2010, 12:55 PM
the most monumental was Heller

OK....what has Heller done for CA gun rights and laws? I haven't seen any changes for the better yet....

GuyW
04-30-2010, 12:57 PM
OK....what has Heller done for CA gun rights and laws? I haven't seen any changes for the better yet....

It makes the anti's soil their shorts every time they read it (asuming literacy here...)

.

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 1:18 PM
OK....what has Heller done for CA gun rights and laws? I haven't seen any changes for the better yet....

Heller won't have any direct impact on California's laws or regulations. It was regarding Washington, D.C. which is a Federal enclave. Heller did not incorporate the 2A against the states at all.

Heller is making a difference in the District of Columbia although even there the follow-on cases are still wending their way through the courts and may continue to do so for some time.

It may be that once McDonald is decided in our favor that precedents established under Heller may apply against the states (but I'm not sure about that) - but as it is right now, Heller means nothing to the states.

Kharn
04-30-2010, 1:21 PM
OK....what has Heller done for CA gun rights and laws? I haven't seen any changes for the better yet....It means that the feds cannot ban handguns. It put Senators Feinstein and Boxer back at square one.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-30-2010, 1:28 PM
When is the McDonald decision going to be made, anyway? :confused:

Casual_Shooter
04-30-2010, 1:30 PM
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.

Very well explained, thank you.

this is one of the best explanations i've read......well done!

Agree 100%. That's an A+ explanation.

gunsmith
04-30-2010, 1:32 PM
It means that the feds cannot ban handguns. It put Senators Feinstein and Boxer back at square one.

so the fed AWB can't come back, ever? Due to Heller?

CEDaytonaRydr
04-30-2010, 1:43 PM
so the fed AWB can't come back, ever? Due to Heller?


It would be nice but no, it can come back.

If you're looking for proof, refer to the 18th and 21st constitutional amendments... ;)

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 2:04 PM
When is the McDonald decision going to be made, anyway? :confused:

Best guess seems to be that it will be handed down on or around the 28th of June.

Ding126
04-30-2010, 3:06 PM
I sure as heck hope it does...but being in CA for most of my life has its doubts...Keep my fingers crossed

tube_ee
04-30-2010, 6:12 PM
It would be nice but no, it can come back.

If you're looking for proof, refer to the 18th and 21st constitutional amendments... ;)

There was not in 1994, and certainly is not now, a sufficient majority across the Union to enact a Constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to re-legislate the 1994 AWB.

As of Heller, anything like that would be shot down by the DC Circuit, or SCOTUS on appeal unless it were done via the Article V process, which ain't gonna happen. After all, if that were possible, the antis would have done it decades ago, and we'd have no RKBA to discuss.

--Shannon

1JimMarch
04-30-2010, 6:25 PM
As these cases named above develop, esp. post-McDonald assuming it's anywhere near as cool as we think it'll be, another body of case law will develop.

It will happen in the criminal courts, as people are caught packing and try and get off on constitutional grounds.

Again: let me make plain, this WILL happen. The quality of these cases will be spotty at best - some will be pretty good, others will absolutely stink both in terms of the plaintiffs (obvious gang members who aren't felons yet, fr'instance) and the quality of the lawyering involved.

It's going to get real interesting.

SixtyDashOne
04-30-2010, 7:27 PM
ONE THING THAT I FEAR MAY HAPPEN....if SCOTUS incorporates the 2A, there will be a small amount of panic amid all the celebrating. The anti gun groups will find a way to reach out to the gun fearing community and convince enough people that what they are doing falls under the "reasonable restriction" guidelines for any law. They'll push for total registration of firearms because it will be "reasonable" to know who has what. The gun fearing will agree and will turn into anti gun drones. If they are smart about it (and lets face it, they are) they'll push the AWB, hi-cap ban, and roster as "reasonable restrictions for the good of the public" and convince the liberal courts to uphold the current laws as "reasonable".

we all know that nothing the anti's do resembles "reason", but if the wording of the McDonald decision allows for any small bit of "reasonable restrictions", this will be the platform that the anti's stand on and scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" once again...

This is the way I'm imagining it playing out as well, which is why I'm not getting my hopes up. You can pretty much guarantee that the liberal anti-gunners that run this state are going to try to claim that all the existing restrictions (assault weapons, high capacity mags, the roster, the CCW policy, etc) are "reasonable restrictions." And I think that will be a very tough fight to win, if not outright impossible. If they leave the definition of "reasonable" up to state legislature, then nothing changes.

SickofSoCal
04-30-2010, 7:29 PM
I'd say depends what state you are in. When it comes to Cali, I'd say no.

Legasat
04-30-2010, 7:36 PM
The cornerstone (or foundation stone) concept is derived from the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure.

McDonald is a cornerstone on which other cases will be built. If the cornerstone can't hold the weight, the house of cards comes tumbling down. This one seems pretty solid...:cool:

OleCuss
04-30-2010, 7:47 PM
This is the way I'm imagining it playing out as well, which is why I'm not getting my hopes up. You can pretty much guarantee that the liberal anti-gunners that run this state are going to try to claim that all the existing restrictions (assault weapons, high capacity mags, the roster, the CCW policy, etc) are "reasonable restrictions." And I think that will be a very tough fight to win, if not outright impossible. If they leave the definition of "reasonable" up to state legislature, then nothing changes.

I don't think that the definition of "reasonable" will be the issue - let alone left up to the state courts or legislatures.

I expect McDonald to effectively find that the RKBA is a fundamental right. Restrictions will be allowed but I think the likelihood that SCOTUS will leave the level of requisite scrutiny to the states to determine is small. Since fundamental rights typically have resulted in laws having to meet strict scrutiny criteria it seems most likely that we'll end up with at least intermediate scrutiny as the criteria the state has to meet in order to restrict our RKBA - and that is not usually just a finding that restrictions are "reasonable". Since I don't think that "reasonable" will be the criterion I don't think you need worry that in the long run our legislature will be determining "reasonable" restrictions. They will call the restrictions reasonable, but they'll likely have to meet intermediate or strict scrutiny - or some new form of scrutiny which SCOTUS may define for firearms legislation/restrictions.

Pray for strict scrutiny - that would greatly advance the cause of freedom.

Edit: Note that the probability that McDonald will define the level of scrutiny doesn't seem very high. More likely to be done by follow-on cases.

dantodd
04-30-2010, 8:36 PM
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.

That's a fairly gross misinterpretation of Cruikshank. While Cruikshank did state that the BoR was not incorporated against the states it was not based on the original intent of the founders. Cruikshank was an extension of the disembowelment that was Slaughter-House. On Hoffmang's recommendation I picked up "The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre..." and I can't recommend it highly enough.

The BoR was clearly not written as a proscription on State interference in the private lives of their citizens, it was written as a protection of state citizens against an overzealous federal government. The Fourteenth amendment was intended to proscribe the states from taking similar actions in response to the treatment of freedmen and other unionists in the southern states during reconstruction. Cruikshank was a betrayal of that promise, not a commentary on the original intent of the BoR.

And in CA towns can't ban some guns completely. The state law preempts local ordinances. Unfortunately there is not a terribly large stick to beat the cities about the head and shoulders with because it is merely a state law violation. Once 2A is incorporated under the 14th amendment such violations become 1981 violations meaning they are civil rights cases and can pierce the veil of immunity thus making the "keepers" personally liable for violating our rights.

dantodd
04-30-2010, 8:41 PM
Yeah - that's the story promulgated by lawyers.

The facts say differently: as reafffirmed in Heller, the Second Amendment is a right that precedes the BOR, Constitution, and is not reliant in any way upon those documents.

Unsaid but TRUE - the RKBA preceded the states, or even the arrival of Englishmen men in America.

The states / ALL GOVERNMENT in the US were bound at their conception by the RKBA....

and I'm damn sure that was the Founders' position and understanding...

BTW, the answer to the OP is "yes"...
.

While it is true that the RKBA was a right pre-dating our founding there is no specific protection of all rights that preceded the founding. Almost all of the early states included 2A-like protections so it should be clear that the Constitution itself was not intended to bind the states on this matter either, else they wouldn't have bothered to include such provisions.

I appreciate that you are damn sure this was the founders' position but without some sort of supporting facts you are whistling in the wind.

dantodd
04-30-2010, 8:45 PM
OK....what has Heller done for CA gun rights and laws? I haven't seen any changes for the better yet....

Things don't happen at Internet speed in the court system. Eventually, with the help of McDonald and Palmer/Sykes it will almost certainly give you the opportunity to defend yourself at home and on the street.

Without a decision that the RKBA is an individual right at the core of which is self-defense McDonald is toothless. This is why there was never a case to incorporate the 2A before. Until it is an individual right what difference does incorporation make?

Heller is the core and the foundation upon which the next century of firearms laws will be written.

BigDogatPlay
04-30-2010, 8:45 PM
When is the McDonald decision going to be made, anyway? :confused:

I'm certain the vote has already been taken and that the justices and their staff know the outcome. What takes so long is the researching, writing, editing and jockeying. For Heller there was the majority opinion and two dissents. I'd expect no less in the case of McDonald.

And it's a landmark kind of case. They will wait until the end of the term to release it.

dantodd
04-30-2010, 8:50 PM
I'm certain the vote has already been taken and that the justices and their staff know the outcome. What takes so long is the researching, writing, editing and jockeying. For Heller there was the majority opinion and two dissents. I'd expect no less in the case of McDonald.

And it's a landmark kind of case. They will wait until the end of the term to release it.

I suspect there is more likely to be only one dissent and at least one concurring to the effect that it should be incorporated but lamenting the loss in Heller.

Lexy99
04-30-2010, 9:05 PM
How is McDonald going to grant me the right in California to buy high cap mags ? I dont think it will.

BigDogatPlay
04-30-2010, 9:10 PM
How is McDonald going to grant me the right in California to buy high cap mags ? I dont think it will.

It won't.

Thats why we all need to keep contributing to CGF when we can. There is much more litigation needed ahead, once McDonald is safely in our legal possibles bag, that is California specific.

Blackhawk556
05-01-2010, 12:01 AM
I'm certain the vote has already been taken and that the justices and their staff know the outcome. What takes so long is the researching, writing, editing and jockeying. For Heller there was the majority opinion and two dissents. I'd expect no less in the case of McDonald.

And it's a landmark kind of case. They will wait until the end of the term to release it.

I doubt it, I'm pretty sure someone would be stupid enough to leak the outcome. It's washington man ;)


OP
This case will not change a single thing, nada, zip, zero ;)

Blackhawk556
05-01-2010, 12:08 AM
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.

If all this is correct, it is a very good explanation of what this case is about. Thanks for explaining it to someone who didn't take a "constitutional law class":)

juicemansam
05-01-2010, 1:15 AM
It just seems the anti's fear will always scream louder than our casual common sense.

Common sense doesn't need to scream; it's usually known. But some people lack common sense, so they will scream instead.

Kharn
05-01-2010, 3:19 AM
I'm certain the vote has already been taken and that the justices and their staff know the outcome. What takes so long is the researching, writing, editing and jockeying. For Heller there was the majority opinion and two dissents. I'd expect no less in the case of McDonald.

And it's a landmark kind of case. They will wait until the end of the term to release it.The Justices meet after oral arguments (the next conference day, within a week) where they vote. The most senior judge on each side (Roberts and Stevens usually) will assign their side's opinions and then the clerks rush to draft, revise and gain concurrences on the opinions.

It is possible for a Justice to switch sides due to a disagreement in the wording or for other reasons, Salazar v Buono was just released and it has no majority opinion (five Justices agree with one side, but to differing degrees) although there is a single dissent with four Justices that reads as if it had started as the majority opinion. This is also why Scalia restrained the wording in Heller vs an all-out strict scrutiny bonanza, Kennedy was not firmly in the pro-2A park at the time.

vantec08
05-01-2010, 5:27 AM
For the antis to give up, Jake, they will have to hold PEOPLE accountable rather than inanimate objects. They and their party tend to represent gun-use criminals and all of the "understand the underlying causes of crime" and "his momma dropped him on his head when a baby" excuses that go with it, so it is very very unlikely they will give up. They would be in effect turning on their own constituency.

dantodd
05-01-2010, 7:35 AM
How is McDonald going to grant me the right in California to buy high cap mags ? I dont think it will.

McDonald made firearms ownership by American citizens a RIGHT.

If there is a successful challenge to the large capacity magazine laws in CA it will be challenged because McDonald says we, as individuals, have a right to firearms ownership. Before McDonald it was not clear (legally) that the Second Amendment referred to an individual right rather than a state right to form a militia.

OleCuss
05-01-2010, 9:09 AM
For the antis to give up, Jake, they will have to hold PEOPLE accountable rather than inanimate objects. They and their party tend to represent gun-use criminals and all of the "understand the underlying causes of crime" and "his momma dropped him on his head when a baby" excuses that go with it, so it is very very unlikely they will give up. They would be in effect turning on their own constituency.

I know it doesn't hold fully accountable all those who trample on our rights, but I think what dantodd pointed out in the last paragraph of his post #41 is at least a start!

SixtyDashOne
05-01-2010, 9:39 AM
If there is a successful challenge to the large capacity magazine laws in CA it will be challenged because McDonald says we, as individuals, have a right to firearms ownership.

The thing that concerns me about the future of high-capacity mags, is I imagine the anti-gunners will surely say "we're not denying your right to own a firearm, we're simply limiting the capacity of your mags." And then they will say that it's a "reasonable restriction," and cite other "reasonable restrictions" such as not allowing an individual to own a grenade launcher. Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-gunners logic (or lack thereof), but I'm just wondering what the counter-argument would be with regards to high capacity mags. I mean we can all come up with our own arguments here as to why the 10rd cap is silly, but specifically, what argument would a pro-2A lawyer be able to pull from McDonald (assuming Chicago loses) to present to SCOTUS as the reason why we should be allowed to own high capacity mags?

ned946
05-01-2010, 10:18 AM
The thing that concerns me about the future of high-capacity mags, is I imagine the anti-gunners will surely say "we're not denying your right to own a firearm, we're simply limiting the capacity of your mags." And then they will say that it's a "reasonable restriction," and cite other "reasonable restrictions" such as not allowing an individual to own a grenade launcher. Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-gunners logic (or lack thereof), but I'm just wondering what the counter-argument would be with regards to high capacity mags. I mean we can all come up with our own arguments here as to why the 10rd cap is silly, but specifically, what argument would a pro-2A lawyer be able to pull from McDonald (assuming Chicago loses) to present to SCOTUS as the reason why we should be allowed to own high capacity mags?

The bad guys never follow the rules though.
There may be one bad guy or a group (gang).
So, again, a law abiding citizen, the only one who's going to follow laws, is condemned to death while the bad guys get life, liberty and the pursuit of their brand of happiness.

Its screwy reasoning and needs to be discussed with every liberal on the planet. Guns are not bad. Bad people are bad and the good guys don't need lmitations. The bad guys will never have limiations once they've forced entry into a home and are holding a liberal at gunpoint...for example.

Conservatives are liberals who have had something bad happen to them.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 10:47 AM
If you hold off on worrying about the specific wording of the McDonald opinion, and just look at it as incorporation, then you can refer to the part of Heller that everyone worried about "dangerous and unusual". Cops have hicaps, so how can they be "dangerous and unusual" and thus ban-able? Plus, cops can buy hi-caps for personal use right now, the 14th says that all citizens are entitled to the same privileges, so either cops lose the privilege of buying them for personal use, or us proles get the "privilege".

This is down the line stuff though, there are plenty more important issues to tackle first.

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Plus, cops can buy hi-caps for personal use right now, the 14th says that all citizens are entitled to the same privileges, so either cops lose the privilege of buying them for personal use, or us proles get the "privilege".

Can they have them for "personal use", or only during duty? I'm sure that the Legislature has no problem with not allowing LEOs to have them while off duty, they seem to not have a problem with disallowing veterans from doing the same.

Erik.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 11:19 AM
I guess you are right, hi caps can be used by LEO while off duty, but only if being used to do their job. Still things like this are how bad laws will be shot down after incorporation.

Once the politicians take away the LEO exceptions to these laws(hi-caps, "safe" hand guns) the politicians lose the support of the LEO unions for these bills, and it takes money and endorsements away from reelection campaigns. Taking preferential treatment away from LEOs is bad for politicians.

Aegis
05-01-2010, 1:22 PM
If you hold off on worrying about the specific wording of the McDonald opinion, and just look at it as incorporation, then you can refer to the part of Heller that everyone worried about "dangerous and unusual". Cops have hicaps, so how can they be "dangerous and unusual" and thus ban-able? Plus, cops can buy hi-caps for personal use right now, the 14th says that all citizens are entitled to the same privileges, so either cops lose the privilege of buying them for personal use, or us proles get the "privilege".

This is down the line stuff though, there are plenty more important issues to tackle first.

Exactly. Shall issue CCW should come first and appears to be the low hanging fruit.

IMO the standard capacity magazine issue will not hold up post McDonald. Allowing CA LEO and the rest of the country to purchase and use and not everyone else in CA will not pass constitutional review. May take some time though.

PlayLoud
05-01-2010, 1:42 PM
Kennedy was not firmly in the pro-2A park at the time.
A reason I worry that MacDonald might not go our way.

big red
05-01-2010, 3:32 PM
I am not holding out a lot of hope until I see the actual language of the decision and not someone's rehash of it or paraphasing. And then if it comes out in our favor is it going to immediately strike down laws state by state as being illegal or is that going to fought out all over again law by law? This case is no magic wand that is going to make everything right overnight and I do think too many people are putting all their hopes (eggs) in one basket on this one.

OleCuss
05-01-2010, 3:42 PM
I am not holding out a lot of hope until I see the actual language of the decision and not someone's rehash of it or paraphasing. And then if it comes out in our favor is it going to immediately strike down laws state by state as being illegal or is that going to fought out all over again law by law? This case is no magic wand that is going to make everything right overnight and I do think too many people are putting all their hopes (eggs) in one basket on this one.

A win on McDonald means that much of the current anti-constitutional restrictions on our rights can be challenged in court with a significant probability of success.

Understand that it will take time, energy, and an intelligent approach. Do dumb stuff and it will become much harder.

big red
05-01-2010, 7:17 PM
I think dumb is a matter of interpretation and as with the uoc issue some people are losing patience and exercising what rights they can. Not saying it is right but people have been standing down for a long time now. The phrase "Trust Us" is not holding a lot of people back anymore.

Al Norris
05-01-2010, 8:45 PM
misterjake, as others have said, Yes. McDonald will be a watershed case, however it (the 2A right) is incorporated (and I have no doubt, here. It will be incorporated as against the States).

In Heller, the question was whether or not the right was an individual right and whether or not a certain set of city codes infringed that right.

That's all the Court answered. Full Stop.

With Heller, we have (finally) laid to rest the "collective rights" theory of the second amendment. The Court has told the rest of the U.S., what we gunnies have always said: The right embodied within the 2A is an individual right, irrespective of any militia relationship.

The specific right that the Court focused on, was keeping arms within the home for self-defense. This was called the "core" right. That right was inferred to be fundamental to our liberties. It was not the be-all or end-all of the right.

Because of the decision in Heller, complete handgun bans are off the table. Rational basis scrutiny of the core right, is off the table. I will go further.

Because of the implications (albeit in dicta) that the core right is fundamental, any law that infringes the right to keep and bear arms, within the home for self-defense, must fall under strict judicial scrutiny, by default.

Despite all the negatives that people have said about the decision in Heller, it was an extremely important first step. The next step is incorporation.

McDonald is that step.

Like Heller before it, McDonald asks the Court a very specific and narrow question: Is the right so fundamental that it falls under protection of the 14th amendments privileges or immunities clause and/or the due process clause, and is therefore incorporated as against the States?

Whatever else may be written within the decision by the Court, it will only directly answer this question. It does not have to decide if the laws of Chicago are valid or not. The Court does not have to set a level of scrutiny - Such level is applied to the core fundamental right by way of prior precedent (i.e. Heller).

All other aspects of the RKBA, are fights for another day.

Now the Court may well invalidate Chicago's gun laws as being unconstitutional, but they certainly don't have to. The easiest solution (for the Court) is to make the pronouncement and send the case(s) back to the District Court with instructions to rule in accordance to their opinion.

However, given Judge Easterbrooks opinion (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG343.pdf) that self-defense is not a right and can be legislated away, I fully expect the Court to make some mention of this, such that the lower courts will be on notice that self-defense is a fundamental right and can not be simply legislated away other than by felony conviction.

So if this is such a "watershed" case, and the Court rules as narrow as I believe it will, what makes this so good for us?

By incorporation, that gives you and I the standing to sue our States, counties or cities for relief of infringement of our rights. Without this decision, we do not have that standing.

For much of the country (particularly, here in the west) it won't make much, if any difference.

For you folks in California, it will be like the difference between night and day.

With these two essential cases, whose focus is on self-defense in the home (the "keep" portion of the right), the focus can now shift to the "bear" part of the right. As in, "Do you have the right to bear arms, outside the home, for self-defense?"

This also brings us to questions on Open Carry v. Concealed Carry; May Issue v. Shall Issue. Cosmetic handguns bans (the safe gun roster); Onerous registration requirements; Waiting periods. Even the AWB will come under fire at some point in the future, if the steps taken before this are small, and build one upon the other.

So misterjake, McDonald is a very important case for the rights of Californians and those in other restrictive States.

OleCuss
05-01-2010, 9:33 PM
Nice summary. Thank you!

GuyW
05-02-2010, 2:29 AM
I appreciate that you are damn sure this was the founders' position but without some sort of supporting facts you are whistling in the wind.

Heller, the referenced GA (IIRC) SC case, numerous historical research papers...
.

Riodog
05-02-2010, 9:02 AM
The part that everyone forgot to add is
"not in our lifetime".
This state is too far gone for anything to ever get back to normal short of a revolution. The best we can reasonably hope for is to win over the CLEO's in each county to lighten up their policies on ccw. The legislators are all too scared of losing their cushy jobs to change anything.
Rio

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 11:36 AM
For those asking what Heller has done so far in California, the answer is a lot, but that lot is in the category of what hasn't happened.

For example, I know of lawyers whose clients wives have kept the family firearms after a 5150 for example. Lots of really bad legislation (beyond the stuff we do see) has been still-born. For example San Mateo County decided to wait on the LCAV proposals based on Heller and the threat of McDonald.

-Gene

CharlieK
05-02-2010, 12:09 PM
For those asking what Heller has done so far in California, the answer is a lot, but that lot is in the category of what hasn't happened.

For example, I know of lawyers whose clients wives have kept the family firearms after a 5150 for example. Lots of really bad legislation (beyond the stuff we do see) has been still-born. For example San Mateo County decided to wait on the LCAV proposals based on Heller and the threat of McDonald.

-Gene

What do you think of the OP's question?

RRangel
05-02-2010, 2:33 PM
I am not holding out a lot of hope until I see the actual language of the decision and not someone's rehash of it or paraphasing. And then if it comes out in our favor is it going to immediately strike down laws state by state as being illegal or is that going to fought out all over again law by law? This case is no magic wand that is going to make everything right overnight and I do think too many people are putting all their hopes (eggs) in one basket on this one.


Incorporation means that our laws will have to be based on an individual RKBA, along with all the scrutiny that goes with it, which today they are clearly not. There can be no argument against this that is based on sound logic.

As an example, the political hacks in the nations capitol, in the District of Columbia, have already failed in their attempt at adopting California's handgun roster after their newly incorporated RKBA.

Yes, the powers that be in Washington D.C. were dumb enough to actually test our laws out for us. So in fact our state's laws are already failing. Care to argue how this law will survive in a post incorporation California? In its current form that's not going to happen.

The legal concepts behind these gun laws will in fact be gone overnight. The lawsuits, and hashing out, will take much longer. Of course this is the normal state of affairs when it comes to such things.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 5:55 PM
What do you think of the OP's question?

McDonald and mostly the sons of McDonald are going to have at least the following impacts in CA:

Shall issue CCW
End of 12031(e)
End of the Handgun Roster
At least open registration of normal ARs and AKs
The ability to acquire firearms out of state
And more depending on how all of the above particularly plays out.

-Gene

misterjake
05-02-2010, 6:16 PM
McDonald and mostly the sons of McDonald are going to have at least the following impacts in CA:

Shall issue CCW
End of 12031(e)
End of the Handgun Roster
At least open registration of normal ARs and AKs
The ability to acquire firearms out of state
And more depending on how all of the above particularly plays out.

-Gene

When you say normal in normal AR, you mean normal as in the way they were designed and all the "evil" features?

Kharn
05-02-2010, 6:33 PM
I think no one would call a currently CA-compliant AR "normal". A federal judge would be hard pressed to explain why a piece of plastic makes one AR ok and another not when the only functional difference is where your thumb goes.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 7:27 PM
When you say normal in normal AR, you mean normal as in the way they were designed and all the "evil" features?

I mean bullet buttonless featured ARs.

-Gene

Window_Seat
05-02-2010, 7:36 PM
...At least open registration of normal ARs and AKs...

-Gene

Will the CA DOJ want to deal with the workload considering how many go out and buy ARs and AKs? Isn't that the reason why AB-1810 is in the suspense file? I would hope that McDonald would be a precursor to ending registration of HGs & prevent it for LGs (after Sykes, et all).

Erik.

yellowfin
05-02-2010, 7:51 PM
After that point, Gene, you need to prosecute the LCAV for racketeering. Pushing illegal laws at the public expense deliberately over and over again has got to have some repercussions on them.

dantodd
05-02-2010, 8:06 PM
Heller, the referenced GA (IIRC) SC case, numerous historical research papers...
.

Heller said no such thing. If Heller said that the RKBA did not need the constitution to be protected and that it is protected against state interference there would be no need for McDonald.

timdps
05-02-2010, 8:35 PM
snip Cops have hicaps, so how can they be "dangerous and unusual" and thus ban-able? Plus, cops can buy hi-caps for personal use right now, the 14th says that all citizens are entitled to the same privileges, so either cops lose the privilege of buying them for personal use, or us proles get the "privilege"...

Another, possibly stronger, argument is that some proles are allowed to own hicaps and others are not allowed to own them, all based on the date the (preban) hicaps were purchased. Don't see how this could stand up to any kind of judicial scrutiny.

misterjake
05-02-2010, 8:51 PM
In Heller, SCOTUS said DC could not enforce a law that required gun owners to have their firearms locked or disabled to not be readily available.

Required gun locks in California Penal Code 12088.

I know Heller was Federal, but will McDonald implement the same wording as Heller plus anything new in regards to states?

So, couldn't 12088 be deemed unconstitutional?

Will McDonald basically take everything said from Heller and apply it to the states? Or will some parts of Heller only apply to Fed land while McDonald will take parts of Heller and new criteria to be determined in June?

Or will McDonald copy and paste Heller to apply to both Fed and State land and any new criteria to be determined by June?

kcbrown
05-02-2010, 9:04 PM
Another, possibly stronger, argument is that some proles are allowed to own hicaps and others are not allowed to own them, all based on the date the (preban) hicaps were purchased. Don't see how this could stand up to any kind of judicial scrutiny.

That just means the legislature will pass a law banning all "hicap" (realistically, "normal capacity") magazines for anyone but LEOs.

They'll justify "normal capacity" magazines for LEOs and not for proles on the basis of giving the LEOs an advantage in armed combat against bad guys, since the supporters of the law will simply assume that the bad guys will follow all the other laws.

Regardless of the actual merits of that argument, I fully expect it'll be used to justify the "state interest" and "least restrictive" bits of the scrutiny requirements.

M. D. Van Norman
05-02-2010, 9:08 PM
The Legislature already did this. :confused:

kcbrown
05-02-2010, 9:15 PM
The Legislature already did this. :confused:

No, they didn't.

The legislation currently on the books forbids importation of normal capacity magazines that were manufactured before the law went into effect.

The legislation I foresee the state passing would forbid the possession of all normal capacity magazines by everyone except law enforcement. There will be no exceptions based on time of manufacture or anything else, other than the possessor's law enforcement status.

M. D. Van Norman
05-02-2010, 9:25 PM
Gotcha. That would indeed be problematic Ö and unconstitutional by the end of June.

kcbrown
05-02-2010, 9:44 PM
Gotcha. That would indeed be problematic … and unconstitutional by the end of June.

Unconstitutional? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Everything depends on the level of scrutiny applied to such a thing. Since an anti-RKBA court would ignore any argument that a 10 round magazine places an individual at a significant defensive disadvantage, I think it's very likely they'd decide that a law forbidding possession of "normal capacity" magazines does not fall into the "strict scrutiny" category since (they would argue) it does not infringe on the core right to keep and bear arms.

The lower the level of scrutiny applied, the harder it will be to successfully challenge such a law.

I fully expect magazine size restrictions to remain in force here in California. And "equal protection" only works within a state, not between them (except when the law in question is a federal one). So I expect you can pretty much forget about successfully challenging such a law based on that.

Of course, I'm a highly skeptical person, but I'm also an optimist: things usually turn out even worse than I predict... :(

M. D. Van Norman
05-02-2010, 9:55 PM
I think it would be enjoined in a hot minute.

Again, if not, the situation would be problematic Ö very problematic in this revolutionary climate.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 10:34 PM
Required gun locks in California Penal Code 12088.

I know Heller was Federal, but will McDonald implement the same wording as Heller plus anything new in regards to states?

So, couldn't 12088 be deemed unconstitutional?

12088 doesn't require one to always keep their gun locked. That section requires that you take delivery of a lock with a gun transfer and that you're liable if someone who shouldn't have access to you firearm gets it and uses it.

I think that will survive even strict scrutiny with some exceptions to the "must take a gun lock" law forcing some of its applications to be narrowed.

-Gene

luvtolean
05-03-2010, 4:56 AM
If you are thinking that this is going to undo the "safe handgun list" and assault weapons bans, I am thinking that you might be disappointed. They kept on discussing 'reasonable regulations' throughout the entire oral argument and it sounds as if they will still be able to regulate firearms to a certain degree. Even Scalia mentioned this (and as far as I can tell, he's pretty 2A friendly).

Personally, I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll hope for the best but I'm still expecting the worst. :(

Do not forget Miller...we already have a SCOTUS ruling on what types of firearms the Second protects.

If you don't know what I'm talking about go check it out, I think you'd like it.

There are so many problems with the AWB, against so much varied, and quite strong, prior case law there is no way it should withstand a challenge post an Incorporation decision.

Just get ready for registration...

GM4spd
05-03-2010, 5:22 AM
The legislation I foresee the state passing would forbid the possession of all normal capacity magazines by everyone except law enforcement. There will be no exceptions based on time of manufacture or anything else, other than the possessor's law enforcement status.

That is a good point. Regardless of what happens in June,people wishing
and hoping for a repeal of some of our state laws regarding AWs, mags,and
a handgun roster are going to be disappointed. Even IF they were found unconstitutional
those bad laws would be replaced with something worse (that will pass muster as
outlined by the court decision). Pete

OleCuss
05-03-2010, 6:52 AM
Too much gloom. The odds that they would pass something worse are pretty slim since it is likely that we will end up with something in the range of intermediate to strict scrutiny.

So McDonald, Sykes, Palmer, Nordyke, etc. go our way (pretty good chance) and our legislature passes worse? Worse would likely fail even intermediate scrutiny and most any decent lawyer would get the courts to stop their implementation meaning that there is no law restricting our RKBA.

No, they are likely to loosen things up - but only as much as they must.

Bugei
05-03-2010, 7:59 AM
The thing that concerns me about the future of high-capacity mags, is I imagine the anti-gunners will surely say "we're not denying your right to own a firearm, we're simply limiting the capacity of your mags." And then they will say that it's a "reasonable restriction," and cite other "reasonable restrictions" such as not allowing an individual to own a grenade launcher. Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-gunners logic (or lack thereof), but I'm just wondering what the counter-argument would be with regards to high capacity mags. I mean we can all come up with our own arguments here as to why the 10rd cap is silly, but specifically, what argument would a pro-2A lawyer be able to pull from McDonald (assuming Chicago loses) to present to SCOTUS as the reason why we should be allowed to own high capacity mags?

This should be cast back; "What's the necessary good to the state that a citizen must be compelled to limit his magazine capacity? And where's the proof that such a limitation serves that good?"

Given a right (done!) and a level of scrutiny (coming!), things like this can be thrown back on the states/municipalities to justify their restrictions.

Just as it always should have been.

stag1500
05-03-2010, 8:09 AM
McDonald is a cornerstone on which other cases will be built. If the cornerstone can't hold the weight, the house of cards comes tumbling down. This one seems pretty solid...:cool:

And Heller was the rock-solid foundation. :D

OleCuss
05-03-2010, 8:25 AM
And Heller was the rock-solid foundation. :D

Yeah, but I actually consider Heller to be the foundation for federal enclaves. I don't think it is a foundation for those of us in the states at all.

I think what Heller did for us was to set a sort of parallel precedent for SCOTUS. They've effectively already gone on record saying that they believe the 2A protects a fundamental right and that will make it very difficult for them not to do much the same for the states. What's more, the follow-on court cases from Heller may cause SCOTUS to specify strict scrutiny (interesting that Heller couldn't buy the pistol he wanted, IIRC) - but I'd not count on any scrutiny statement.

Heller was a win for us - but not precisely a direct win for RKBA in California.

And yes, I'm pretty sure you knew that already - maybe better than I do. . .

wildhawker
05-03-2010, 11:05 AM
Heller was litigated where it was for a reason. McDonald (also litigated where it was for a reason) is going to extend the ruling of Heller to the several states.

The only real question was, and remains, *how*.

advocatusdiaboli
05-03-2010, 3:06 PM
I suspect there is more likely to be only one dissent and at least one concurring to the effect that it should be incorporated but lamenting the loss in Heller.

Well, Sotomayor for certain. You don't think anyone else will side with her? That's incredible from my point of view so I'd like to know your reasoning.

M. D. Van Norman
05-03-2010, 3:21 PM
In Heller, everyone agreed that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. Inexplicably, however, several justices thought that D.C.ís ban on handguns didnít violate that right.