PDA

View Full Version : McDonald: Reversed and Remanded


Pages : [1] 2 3

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 6:40 AM
From Scotus Blog's live feed...

http://www.scotusblog.com/

9:39

Tom:
Incorporation will be under the Due Process Clause.

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded

Erik.

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 6:43 AM
haha! the server is obviously overloaded...i got 15mbps and it's taking its good sweet time to load. Glad to see that so many people are waiting in anticipation!!!

anthonyca
06-28-2010, 6:45 AM
Do you know what the vote count was?

smokeysbandit
06-28-2010, 6:45 AM
Yup still loading. P or I would have been correct, But it looks like we got incoporation!!!! Woooo Hoooo

dantodd
06-28-2010, 6:48 AM
That was a prediction, not the opinion release. The opinion will be released at approx. 7:00AM

dixieD
06-28-2010, 6:51 AM
Thanks for confirming what I was thinking. 9 minutes to go.

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 6:54 AM
That was a prediction, not the opinion release. The opinion will be released at approx. 7:00AM

He stated it on the site in an "as a matter of fact" form, and it was before he posted his link on the prediction article. I asked Tom to clarify that in the feed.

Justice Ginsburg's Husband passed yesterday. Condolences to her (no matter what side she is on).

Tom:
We do not know if Justice Ginsburg will be on the bench, given the passing of her husband yesterday.

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded

Erik.

stag1500
06-28-2010, 6:57 AM
Justice Ginsburg's Husband passed yesterday. Condolences to her (no matter what side she is on).


Erik.

Senator Robert Byrd just passed away this morning.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 6:57 AM
I'd imagine Gene probably has 3 extra batteries for his phone for today.

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 6:58 AM
will the pdf decision be posted to http://www.supremecourt.gov/ at 7am, or will that take a little longer....

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 7:05 AM
From ScotusBlog:

Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
Tom: Gun rights prevail
Erin: The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
Tom: 5-4
Erin: Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Tom: The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
Erin: The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
Erin: Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
Erin: Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 7:05 AM
reversed and remanded :p:eek:

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 7:06 AM
This is from SCOTUS Blog!

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded

Erik.

WokMaster1
06-28-2010, 7:06 AM
Huh?

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 7:06 AM
we win 5-4

trashman
06-28-2010, 7:07 AM
Yeah! Great news - looking forward the the actual opinion.

From SCOTUSblog liveblog:

10:05
Tom:
5-4 Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:05
Erin:
Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin


10:05
Tom:
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom


10:06
Erin:
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government. Monday June 28, 2010 10:06 Erin


10:06
Erin:
Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 7:07 AM
DP is the law of the land. We lost lots of groups who would otherwise have been strong allies with that move.

CCWFacts
06-28-2010, 7:07 AM
I'm very happy about it.

But note, it was 5-4! Just like Heller! Everyone should pause for a moment and realize that our rights were hanging by a thread... 5-4

I'm glad we have our rights now, but we need to turn that thread into a strong rope. The way to do that is to take your non-shooting friends shooting.

artherd
06-28-2010, 7:08 AM
UPDATE: Opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
10:05
Tom: 5-4
10:05
Erin: Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
10:05
Tom: The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
10:06
Erin: The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
10:06
Erin: Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
10:07
Erin: Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
10:07

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 7:08 AM
:party:

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 7:08 AM
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:06

Erin:
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:06 Erin
10:06

Erin:
Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:06 Erin
10:07

Erin:
Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.

Tom:
The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn't affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local reguation.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Tom
10:08

Erin:
The McDonald opinion is here
Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Erin
10:09

Erin:
The full orders list is here

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 7:09 AM
McDonald Decision...214 PAGES!!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

CHEERS!!!

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 7:09 AM
5-4 GULP. I was confident that we would get incorporation!

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 7:09 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

HalfMeltingEyes
06-28-2010, 7:10 AM
:party:

stag1500
06-28-2010, 7:10 AM
The decision is out!

Standard
06-28-2010, 7:10 AM
Good to hear. The 5-4 just disgusts me though.

Cobrafreak
06-28-2010, 7:10 AM
Great news! So is the "Strict" standard that we wanted?

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 7:10 AM
http://www.crankshafted.com/upload/files/19/Woo%20Hoo%20Homer.jpg

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 7:12 AM
...

Tom:
The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn't affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local reguation.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Tom
10:08




:D

D-Man
06-28-2010, 7:12 AM
Woo hoo! We did it!!!!! Let the dominoes start to fall!

scc1909
06-28-2010, 7:13 AM
What is the level of scrutiny?

383green
06-28-2010, 7:16 AM
Woohoo! :party:

Decision downloaded... but I'm too excited to read it just yet! :willy_nilly:

Cobrafreak
06-28-2010, 7:16 AM
Is this the strict standard that we wanted?

stitchnicklas
06-28-2010, 7:16 AM
effing sotomayer was a disenter...big surprise...

but...we won

:jump::jump::jump:

wkd4496
06-28-2010, 7:17 AM
Now off to the range I go to celebrate! :D

The Nomadd
06-28-2010, 7:17 AM
YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!:cheers2::patriot: :clap:

Havoc70
06-28-2010, 7:17 AM
Yah, so much for "wise Latina" not being an issue, right? Ugh.

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 7:19 AM
I am really blown away as to how 4 Justices where ok with passing this as not unconstitutional. This should have nothing to do with your opinion of guns, or your personal beliefs. They are in their position to interpret the Constitution! BOTTOM LINE!

peepshowal
06-28-2010, 7:20 AM
Yah, so much for "wise Latina" not being an issue, right? Ugh.

I was just thinking the same thing. Double ugh.

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 7:21 AM
498 currently viewing the 2nd Amendment Section!

MasterYong
06-28-2010, 7:21 AM
http://www.crankshafted.com/upload/files/19/Woo%20Hoo%20Homer.jpg

I was just thinking: "there are no words to articulate how I feel right now..."

...but that image sums it up nicely TYVM!!!

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 7:21 AM
We have our victory, now let's see what's in the details of the decision. Should be interesting lunchtime reading.

P or I was, apparently, too much to hope for but hats off to Mr. Justice Thomas. As a man of character as well as a man of color he understands better than most the fallacy that resides at the middle of Slaughter House.

sreiter
06-28-2010, 7:22 AM
To remand is be sent back to a lower court for for either a full new trial, or a new trial with instructions.

So, if the court reversed a decision, doesn't that stand? Why do would a lower court try a case that has had its decision reversed?

thanks in advance

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 7:24 AM
I think that they are telling the lower court to "get it right, or else", but it says "reversed" too, so I'm a bit head scratchy at the same time...

Erik.

Crom
06-28-2010, 7:24 AM
I can't believe the fate of our rights as Americans were hinged on a 5-4 decision. My God!

7x57
06-28-2010, 7:24 AM
One of the problems with Calguns is the fact that our professionals are also professional optimists. I am not surprised in the slightest about 5-4. In fact, after the orals I'm more surprised that anyone expected otherwise.

Basically, people still want to throw the hail mary pass and win a generational culture war in one play. :rolleyes:

7x57

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 7:25 AM
BREYER, J., dissenting:

"Consider too that countless gun regulations of manyshapes and sizes are in place in every State and in manylocal communities. Does the right to possess weapons forself-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weap-ons likely needed? Does time-of-day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the pres-ence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to findguns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emer-gencies? As the questions suggest, state and local gunregulation can become highly complex, and these “are onlya few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.” Caperton
v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (ROB-ERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., at 10)."

Crom
06-28-2010, 7:26 AM
This was from page 5 of the syllabus / case PDF file:

JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded, in Parts II–C, IV, and V, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the SecondAmendment right recognized in Heller. Pp. 10–11, 33–44.
(a)
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is oneof the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under theFourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.
(b)
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, theyask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to adifferent body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. Pp. 33–40.

cj1026
06-28-2010, 7:27 AM
Tag

stitchnicklas
06-28-2010, 7:29 AM
????????

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 7:29 AM
BREYER, J., dissenting:
Although one scholar implies that state courts are lesswilling to permit total gun prohibitions, see Volokh, Im-plementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1458 (2009), I am awareof no instances in the past 50 years in which a state court has struck down as unconstitutional a law banning a particular class of firearms, see Winkler, Scrutinizing 723.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 7:30 AM
Okay, so is what Breyer saying is that the government dug the hole too deep to cover it up? That almost sounds like a lazy man saying he doesn't want to do his freaking job and correct decades of wrongs. What a Jackhole !

CGK60
06-28-2010, 7:31 AM
I think it was 5 to 4.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 7:32 AM
Does this mean that Cruikshank, Miller and Presser are all dead?

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 7:33 AM
Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully
applicable to the States.

Erik.

gunsmith
06-28-2010, 7:34 AM
Yah, so much for "wise Latina" not being an issue, right? Ugh.

she obviously is a freaking liar, she said she supported the 2A.

Adehtla
06-28-2010, 7:35 AM
They reversed the lower court's decision. As for the remanded, I'm not sure.

bulgron
06-28-2010, 7:35 AM
I skimmed through the syllabus and the decision, and I didn't see anything at all about scrutiny. Looks like we're going to have to fight this inch by agonizing inch.

Vtec44
06-28-2010, 7:37 AM
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5-4? Wow, if this isn't about 2A i would have been unanimous.

QQQ
06-28-2010, 7:37 AM
WWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

But yeah, 5-4. Close call.

Bud Fox
06-28-2010, 7:37 AM
I believe there would have been a different outcome if Kagan was on that board.

Chatterbox
06-28-2010, 7:37 AM
They reversed the lower court's decision. As for the remanded, I'm not sure.

AFAIK, remanded means it goes back to the lower court for another try.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 7:38 AM
I believe there would have been a different outcome if Kagan was on that board.

Possibly 6-3 and 2 for P or I.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 7:39 AM
I believe there would have been a different outcome if Kagan was on that board.

You think she would have voted differently than Stevens?

problemchild
06-28-2010, 7:40 AM
IN non lawyer speak what does this mean to a California subject like me>?

Hogxtz
06-28-2010, 7:41 AM
I can't believe the fate of our rights as Americans were hinged on a 5-4 decision. My God!

+10000, A wake up call for sure. How can any Justice find this unconstitutional is mind blowing and very scary. We actually almost lost our rights. 5-4, I am happy but at the same time a little shaken up and scared. That was close one for sure.

69Mach1
06-28-2010, 7:41 AM
This is wonderful.

Bud Fox
06-28-2010, 7:41 AM
You think she would have voted differently than Stevens?

Oh that's right. Thanks Dan.

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 7:43 AM
Lower courts cannot (please correct me if this is wrong) reverse higher court's decisions, so if the 7th rules any other way... It would be like trying to drive down the wrong side of the road. Is that a good analogy? I've always been told (by the anti's) that my analogies are bad.:p

Erik.

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 7:44 AM
if Pena, Sykes, or Nordyke make it to SCOTUS, they'll be forced to get a little more specific. Of course, that could take years, so lets hope that the lower courts find in our favor based on the McDonald decision....

xr650r
06-28-2010, 7:44 AM
Now what about that 1st amendment...would that have been a 5-4 squeaker, too?

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 7:46 AM
They reversed the lower courts ruling and are telling them to try it again. They could still find the same way and just change the language, and then we'd be right back in SCOTUS.....it will most likely be struck down, but it hasn't happened "officially" yet.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 7:46 AM
What is the level of scrutiny?

Is this the strict standard that we wanted?

That is what is unclear at this point. Also, after persuing the opinion I am not clear how this helps CCW applications since presumably the purpose of CCW is to allow carrying outside of the home and in home possession seems to the key underpinning of the opinion.

Still a long road to applying this case to CCW uniformity which I think is the best possible goal.

lewdogg21
06-28-2010, 7:46 AM
Now what about that 1st amendment...would that have been a 5-4 squeaker, too?

Only if you disagree with the progressives....

I'm somewhat optimistic about CA's gun rights futures after this. Before I was thinking gloom and doom.

IrishPirate
06-28-2010, 7:46 AM
Is this the strict standard that we wanted?

waiting for Gene to tell us that one :D

Blackhawk556
06-28-2010, 7:47 AM
Should we be worried that this got remanded? Can we get screwed even more by this????????????

guayuque
06-28-2010, 7:48 AM
I can't believe the fate of our rights as Americans were hinged on a 5-4 decision. My God!

Here is some news for you. Many of the SCOTUS decisions that give us rights we now take for granted were decided by slim margins.

junker87
06-28-2010, 7:50 AM
I would just like to remind you all that if it was President Gore instead of Bush, we would not have had Alito and Roberts, and we would have lost, and the 2nd amendment would have been effectively dead with Gore's picks of Justices.

Elections matter.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 7:52 AM
Stevens is just freakin' evil. Not wrong, not leftist, not disagreeing with me, EVIL. I'm glad we'll be rid of him.

And thank goodness Alito strikes down the idea of "experimentation" in denying 2nd Amendment rights. Depriving people of their rights because of their zip code is permissible for "experimentation"??? Yeah, like the Nazi human experiments where they autopsied people while still alive.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 7:52 AM
I like this U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washing-ton v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right.

Kestryll
06-28-2010, 7:52 AM
Could be better in the overall but we have Incorporation.

Let the games BEGIN!!!!!


:43:

Librarian
06-28-2010, 7:53 AM
'Remanded' is 'you guys got it wrong the first time - here is our guidance on how to get it right, so now do it our way'.

7th Circuit is unlikely to defy SCOTUS; however, how it responds might influence how other circuits and lower courts apply McDonald.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 7:53 AM
from p. 31 of the decision

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

rkt88edmo
06-28-2010, 7:54 AM
The closest I can get is watching the live feed in the google search results, damn gunnies, way to blow up scotusblog.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 7:54 AM
I would just like to remind you all that if it was President Gore instead of Bush, we would not have had Alito and Roberts, and we would have lost, and the 2nd amendment would have been effectively dead with Gore's picks of Justices.

Elections matter.

That is almost certainly true, but I am not sure that all this gives us - a total weapons ban that results in an inability to keep any firearms at home is unconstitutional - is worth the unmitigated disaster that was Bush.

bruss01
06-28-2010, 7:54 AM
I think what it means (IANAL) is that the lower court based it's opinion solely on previous Supreme Court precedent which has now been reversed. SC is saying "yes you made a decision based on precedent we handed down, but we have now reversed that precedent so why don't you take another stab at it". The lower court could STILL find in favor of Chicago (not bloodly likely) on different grounds if there were any... but the SC is leaving it to the lower court to determine that.

In essence, they are not saying "You got it wrong, dummies, and we are over-ruling you" - but rather "You based your conclusion on an existing precedent that has since become obsolete, we have now given you the tools to make a better decision".

Did I get it right Law Dogs?

Paragun
06-28-2010, 7:54 AM
And we were there!

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 7:56 AM
The closest I can get is watching the live feed in the google search results, damn gunnies, way to blow up scotusblog.

I closed it out just for you. They are done with it I believe!

ZombieTactics
06-28-2010, 7:57 AM
That is almost certainly true, but I am not sure that all this gives us - a total weapons ban that results in an inability to keep any firearms at home is unconstitutional - is worth the unmitigated disaster that was Bush.
Rather I think this stands clearly as a mitigation of the disaster that was Bush.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 7:57 AM
Getting into the good stuff now.
Also from p. 31

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents con-tend that Congress, in the years immediately following the Civil War, merely sought to outlaw “discriminatory meas-ures taken against freedmen, which it addressed by adopt-ing a non-discrimination principle” and that even an outright ban on the possession of firearms was regarded as acceptable, “so long as it was not done in a discriminatory manner.” Brief for Municipal Respondents 7. They argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment “as an antidiscrimination rule,” and they cite statements to the effect that the sec-tion would outlaw discriminatory measures. Id., at 64. This argument is implausible. First, while §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains“an antidiscrimination rule,” namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that §1 does no more than prohibit discrimination. If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States,would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but only discriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, so what they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavor-able—treatment. We reject that suggestion.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 7:58 AM
Should we be worried that this got remanded? Can we get screwed even more by this????????????

Nah. The Second Amendment is the law of the land. All of the cases pending in California are only connected to McDonald via the Incorporation question. The actual finding in the case is less important. With regard to Mr. McDonald's case the court was told that the second is incorporated and that they need to re decide the case based on that new information it is a fairly small box to put them in as McDonald plus Heller makes for pretty clear precedence.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 7:59 AM
Rather I think this stands clearly as a mitigation of the disaster that was Bush.

Perhaps. But, I am not sure that the families of those dead and maimed by war or those who lost their wealth and jobs would agree it is enough mitigation.

sreiter
06-28-2010, 8:00 AM
'Remanded' is 'you guys got it wrong the first time - here is our guidance on how to get it right, so now do it our way'.

7th Circuit is unlikely to defy SCOTUS; however, how it responds might influence how other circuits and lower courts apply McDonald.

ok, i'm with you on that part (not full remand)...but whats the "reversed" part mean?

What exactly was reversed?

surely not the courts view on whether or not the 2nd was incorporated, as this is the first time the addressed the issue.

when a appellate court reverses a lower court decision, the ruling stands.

jeffyboy
06-28-2010, 8:00 AM
Great news to wake up to...now we have more ammo...let the fight continue

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 8:02 AM
From p. 33
Opinion of the Court
Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) 33
Opinion of ALITO, J.
Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to dis-band and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen, supra, 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, §6, 14 Stat. 485, 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

The right to bear arms not just keep. Speaks to bearing outside the home yes?

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 8:03 AM
Romans quick and easy guide as to what these strange words mean.

Step 1: Otis M sues Chicago for violating the 2nd amendment rights in Federal District Court (Trial Court)- The court (rightly) dismisses his case because the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States.

Step 2. Otis M appeals that decision to the 7th Circuit court of Appeals, who ALSO rule the Second Amendment doesnt apply to the states.

Step 3. Otis M Appeals that decision to the SCOTUS, who REVERSE the 7th circuits decision in his appeal (the Second Amendment DOES apply to the states and the Chicago handgun ban is illegal) and REMAND to the TRIAL COURT to enter a ruling on the case consistent with the Courts opinion. (Trial courts decide winners and losers.... Appeals Courts rule on issues of law.)

Assuming there are no other issues of fact (there aren't), Otis M wins his case, and the Trial Judge enters a judgment on his behalf, that the City must comply with.

NorCal MedTac
06-28-2010, 8:03 AM
How about everyone right now celebrate by sending some $$$$$ the CGF way!

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 8:04 AM
Win.

"The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previ-ous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added). 22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitu-tional right to bear arms.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, which wasconsidered at the same time as the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, similarly sought to protect the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.23 Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act guaranteed the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Ibid. This language was vir-tually identical to language in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, 14 Stat. 176–177 (“the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal”). And as noted, the latter provision went on to explain that one of the “laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal” was “the constitutional right to bear arms.” Ibid. Representative Bingham believed that the Civil Rights Act protected the same rights as enumerated in the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, which of course explicitly mentioned the right to keep and bear arms. 39th Cong. Globe 1292. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Civil Rights Act, like the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, aimed to protect “the constitutional right to bear arms” and not simply to prohibit discrimination. See also Amar, Bill of Rights 264–265 (noting that one of the “core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances” of freedmen who had been stripped of their arms and to “affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense”).

stag1500
06-28-2010, 8:04 AM
The lower court could STILL find in favor of Chicago (not bloodly likely) on different grounds if there were any... but the SC is leaving it to the lower court to determine that.

No they can't. Heller now applies to the states. Heller said that banning ownership of functional handguns in the home for self defense is unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit Court cannot possibly rule in favor of Chicago.

klmmicro
06-28-2010, 8:05 AM
Has been a nail biter for the past whiles. I may not post a lot, but I have been following the cases. Glad that our RIGHT was affirmed correctly through this decision, but 5-4 (not unexpected) simply raises the hairs on the back of my neck. This entire country is one opinion away from ceasing to exist as the Framers intended. Scary times!

paradox
06-28-2010, 8:05 AM
That is what is unclear at this point. Also, after persuing the opinion I am not clear how this helps CCW applications since presumably the purpose of CCW is to allow carrying outside of the home and in home possession seems to the key underpinning of the opinion.

Still a long road to applying this case to CCW uniformity which I think is the best possible goal.


Heller and McDonald are solely concerned with "keep ... arms." Another case will be required to flesh the other half of the conjunction: "bear arms."

Uxi
06-28-2010, 8:05 AM
:rolleyes:

BREYER, J., dissenting:

Consider too that countless gun regulations of manyshapes and sizes are in place in every State and in manylocal communities. Does the right to possess weapons forself-defense extend outside the home? yes! duh!

To the car? To work? yes, yes

What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? any. Rifles are far less concealable, so why not?

Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic?

Why not? Irrelevant


Where are different kinds of weap-ons likely needed? whatever an individual is comfortable with carrying

Does time-of-day matter? no

Does the presence of a child in the house matter? no

Does the pres-ence of a convicted felon in the house matter? not unless they've lost the right to self-defense

Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to findguns? Any normal legal authority for a resonable search/seizure. Weapons shouldn't be a special exception to the ordinary protections we enjoy.

When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? when they interfere in a normal person's right to self defense.

Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers?
Legal adult citizens not under felony conviction prohibiting possession


how would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emer-gencies? no difference than the state or local ability to infringe on my right to free speech or freedom of religion or right not to not self-incriminate, etc etc during any 'emer-gency.'


As the questions suggest, state and local gunregulation can become highly complex, and these “are onlya few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”
do your job and rule on them as they're challenged (or not). Leave the legislative branch's job to them

Caperton

Honeydos
06-28-2010, 8:05 AM
First of all, WOO HOOO! It's not p&i, but its a start...:D

Next, guayque, not to get off topic, but I was wondering how you can reconcile your support of the ACLU with the fact that they continually refuse to support the second ammendment? Not flaming you, just seriously interested. I would support the ACLU if they actually supported the entire bill of rights, not just the parts they agree with.

Perhaps. But, I am not sure that the families of those dead and maimed by war or those who lost their wealth and jobs would agree it is enough mitigation.

PatriotnMore
06-28-2010, 8:06 AM
08-1521 McDonald v. Chicago (06/28/2010)

I have a few of questions?


1 .Alito states:
concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of selfdefense.

Does this put to rest the right to bear in the home only argument we have heard, or is where we have the right to bear arms, still going to be a fight in light of this further comment, “Explaining that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid.”

2. Again, “Other civilized countries” is brought up by Alito. Was this simply to answer the question raised? Or, is our highest court now mixing the Constitution/BOR and other countries are doing into their rulings?

3. I found this to be interesting, and disturbing.
“The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause.”
Assuming this is correct, what parts of the BOR are we not guaranteed under Due Process?

4.In light of favor of DP over P or I, and the below statements, it seems the implication that the majority of justices do not want to revisit Slaughterhouse?

“There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”

“We see no need to reconsider that interpretation here. For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding.”

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:06 AM
From p. 33


The right to bear arms not just keep. Speaks to bearing outside the home yes?

Not to insult you, but lay persons always do this - excising a quote without reading it in the entire context of the opinion.

All the majority did hear was say yes to incorporation and therefore a total weapons ban in the home is unconstitutional. The opinion alos states that all types of regulations on types of firearms, who can possess, where firearms can be taken, etc. are proper.

Flopper
06-28-2010, 8:07 AM
Perhaps. But, I am not sure that the families of those dead and maimed by war or those who lost their wealth and jobs would agree it is enough mitigation.

Warriors get maimed and killed, and last time I checked we have an all volunteer military.

A capitalistic republic only protects equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

This is the real world honey; calm down and take your ACLU card-holding BS and your threadjack to Off Topic already.

dfletcher
06-28-2010, 8:07 AM
Breyer's ignorance is appalling - how on earth does a statement about no class of firearms in the last 50 years being banned make it to his final opinion - are his clerks out to get him?

With respect to the dissenting 4 in general, how intellectually bankrupt (and what better way to demonstrate hubris) than to cast aside principle and vote one's like or dislike that although a right exists it does not apply.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 8:08 AM
Nice smack down for the Chicago thugs.

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation prece-dent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era. Municipal respondents submit that the Due Process Clause protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’”

dfletcher
06-28-2010, 8:09 AM
Now what about that 1st amendment...would that have been a 5-4 squeaker, too?

Not for newspapers, TV & magazines - just for talk radio .....;)

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:10 AM
Warriors get maimed and killed, and last time I checked we have an all volunteer military.

A capitalistic republic only protects equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

This is the real world honey; calm down and take your ACLU card-holding BS and your threadjack to Off Topic already.

Had you actually been a responsbile warrior you would understand that whiel volunteer they also have teh right to have those in commend exercise proper judgment before asking for the volunteer/s sacrifice. And, I was responding to another comment and if you do not like mine tough.

Exile Machine
06-28-2010, 8:10 AM
Fantastic news! Worth staying up all night for.

-Mark

sreiter
06-28-2010, 8:10 AM
roman -

isn't a reversal of a decision means you win or lose? If i lose in lets say traffic court and i appeal on a matter of law, and the appellate court finds in my favor, I win.

is that different for SCOTUS?

Do they have to say "you're wrong lower court, now you go back and change your ruling because we cant?"


sorry if i'm being dense, just trying to fully understand the process, and it seems others arent too clear either

Ed_Hazard
06-28-2010, 8:13 AM
Great news to hear. Lets be happy that we have this victory and take the 5-4 vote as the clear sign that much work still needs to be done.

ZRX61
06-28-2010, 8:13 AM
the 2d Amendment is incorporated


So this is the important part.. right?

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:14 AM
08-1521 McDonald v. Chicago (06/28/2010)

I have a few of questions?


1 .Alito states:
concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of selfdefense.

Does this put to rest the right to bear in the home only argument we have heard, or is where we have the right to bear arms, still going to be a fight in light of this further comment, “Explaining that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid.”

2. Again, “Other civilized countries” is brought up by Alito. Was this simply to answer the question raised? Or, is our highest court now mixing the Constitution/BOR and other countries are doing into their rulings?

3. I found this to be interesting, and disturbing.
“The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause.”
Assuming this is correct, what parts of the BOR are we not guaranteed under Due Process?

4.In light of favor of DP over P or I, and the below statements, it seems the implication that the majority of justices do not want to revisit Slaughterhouse?

“There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”

“We see no need to reconsider that interpretation here. For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding.”

No, the holding itself is pretty narrow and I think there is still a long way to go but the opinion does nothing but outlaw toal weapons ban that would prevent in home possession. Here is form the majority at pg 39.

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that
prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms..."

bruss01
06-28-2010, 8:15 AM
No they can't. Heller now applies to the states. Heller said that banning ownership of functional handguns in the home for self defense is unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit Court cannot possibly rule in favor of Chicago.

Reading too fast? Missed the "other grounds IF THERE WERE ANY"?

What I was saying is that the SC did not prohibit them from deciding whatever they want... just eliminated them from hiding behind a now-obsolete precedent in doing so. If they do still find in favor of Chicago on whatever nonsense the Daley team dreams up next, the are set up for an immediate smack down. This is the difference between giving someone an opportunity to correct a legitimate error vs calling them an idiot. Maybe not terribly important to you and I at the street-level of things, but terribly important in the worlds of legal protocol to those who have to conduct themselves in those realms.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:15 AM
So this is the important part.. right?

I think so. It gives a key and solid consitutional basis for attack on all forms of regulations, but keep in mind that the majority has said in Heller and again in this case that all types of regulations are permissible including who can bear, where the can bear and what they can bear.

Full Clip
06-28-2010, 8:16 AM
Now what about that 1st amendment...would that have been a 5-4 squeaker, too?

Yes, if it was a case involving this guy:
http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/beck-glenn1.jpg

Or this guy:
http://atthebox.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/rush-limbaugh.jpg

But not this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers):
http://politicaltopten.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/williamayers.jpg

nitrofc
06-28-2010, 8:16 AM
Has been a nail biter for the past whiles. I may not post a lot, but I have been following the cases. Glad that our RIGHT was affirmed correctly through this decision, but 5-4 (not unexpected) simply raises the hairs on the back of my neck. This entire country is one opinion away from ceasing to exist as the Framers intended. Scary times!

I agree.....waaaay waaaaayyyyy to close for comfort.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 8:17 AM
roman -

isn't a reversal of a decision means you win or lose? If i lose in lets say traffic court and i appeal on a matter of law, and the appellate court finds in my favor, I win.

is that different for SCOTUS?

Do they have to say "you're wrong lower court, now you go back and change your ruling because we cant?"


sorry if i'm being dense, just trying to fully understand the process, and it seems others arent too clear either


They are Picking the winner and Loser, but ONLY of the ISSUE at appeal...

Im charged with murder. I argue that my fifth amendment rights were violated and that certain evidence should be excluded. The trial court rules against me, and the evidence comes in. I ask the appeal court to REVERSE that DECISION.... They agree with me and reverse it. YAY!!! IVE WON!!! My trial goes on (remanded), WITHOUT the evidence..... But Im not automatically "not Guilty"... In fact, Im found guilty and get stabbed to death in the prison yard....


In THIS case, the ONLY issue is whether the Chicago handgun ban violates the Constitution... The Court ruled it DOES, so all thats left for the trial judge to do, is enter a judgment- After that, CASE CLOSED.

Tacticalintervention
06-28-2010, 8:17 AM
Not a lawyer but been around to see many SC decisions be made and then see how the decision is looked at/enforced over next few years, so a question for the lawyer types, not the guys who dont have law degee.

Is this just a door opener, and requirres that individual gun laws to be taken on one by one, or does this smash a bunch of them with broad stroke?

the_quark
06-28-2010, 8:19 AM
Has been a nail biter for the past whiles. I may not post a lot, but I have been following the cases. Glad that our RIGHT was affirmed correctly through this decision, but 5-4 (not unexpected) simply raises the hairs on the back of my neck. This entire country is one opinion away from ceasing to exist as the Framers intended. Scary times!

I've been saying for a while that the greatest threat to the Republic currently existent is that one of The Five gets hit by a bus.

Window_Seat
06-28-2010, 8:20 AM
Note, that from all I know (IANAL), reversed & remanded means:

The lower courts findings are reversed, and the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the 14th. Language from Heller is applied to McDonald. It is now the law of the land

The case is remanded, which means that they have to apply the same findings, but nothing less.

Counsel: Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Erik.

dark_ninja
06-28-2010, 8:21 AM
Man that was a close call! I agree with Andrew! This has little to do with guns as has to do more with our constitutional rights! At least we know who is against the constitution! Amen!

OleCuss
06-28-2010, 8:26 AM
from p. 31 of the decision

Thank you!!! First one to really make me happy all day!

"Fundamental" greatly increases the likelihood that we get strict scrutiny.

Also, the fact that we did not get PorI might just mean that incorporation of the 2A is more durable than if we had gotten it. To a significant degree it looks to me like the court is sticking to respect for stare decisis and that means that if that concept is still enshrined it is far less likely that a court with more fascist leanings will reverse this.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:26 AM
Not a lawyer but been around to see many SC decisions be made and then see how the decision is looked at/enforced over next few years, so a question for the lawyer types, not the guys who dont have law degee.

Is this just a door opener, and requirres that individual gun laws to be taken on one by one, or does this smash a bunch of them with broad stroke?

Note, that from all I know (IANAL), reversed & remanded means:

The lower courts findings are reversed, and the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the 14th. Language from Heller is applied to McDonald. It is now the law of the land

The case is remanded, which means that they have to apply the same findings, but nothing less.

Counsel: Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Erik.

I've been praciting law for 20 years and the observation that this is but a gate to go through to being attacking regulations is correct. This will not be solved anytime soon and the most important feature is that the ruling was narrow and noted that all types of regulations are valid.

Reversed and remanded means go back and revisit and issue a new ruling that now observes our findings on this narrow issue. That being said, the 7th Cir may strike down a portion of the ordinance relating to in home possession. Or, it could go a bit wider. Just plenty of variables as to how the ordinance was drawn, how it was framed in the original complaint and I have not read the ordinance at issue.

7x57
06-28-2010, 8:27 AM
Does this put to rest the right to bear in the home only argument we have heard, or is where we have the right to bear arms, still going to be a fight in light of this further comment, “Explaining that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid.”


If we were talking about English, "most acute" would grammatically imply that there are situations outside the home where the need for self-defense is "less acute," and the natural sense of that is that it still exists there. However, we're actually talking about legalese, which I don't speak....

Two thoughts about that if it were idiomatic English instead of legalese--it suggests that the right definitely extends outside the home, which is good, but specifies nothing other than that there the need is "less acute." No information about how much less, or how much "need" matters given that it specifically rejects Bryer's brain-damaged "interest balancing" test. I speculate that the antis will try to use this to obtain a lower level of scrutiny outside the home, just as that one judge applied a lower level of scrutiny to hunting arms than to defensive arms. Whether that's likely to succeed and how bad it would be I will not try to guess at this time.


2. Again, “Other civilized countries” is brought up by Alito. Was this simply to answer the question raised? Or, is our highest court now mixing the Constitution/BOR and other countries are doing into their rulings?


While the "international precedent" stuff is scary and hideous, I don't think that is what this is about. The city argued that the right wouldn't be incorporated if it was possible to imagine a civilized society without the Second Amendment, so Alito had to tell them why that wasn't the standard for incorporation.


3. I found this to be interesting, and disturbing.
“The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause.”
Assuming this is correct, what parts of the BOR are we not guaranteed under Due Process?


The right to a Grand Jury indictment, for one thing.

Disturbing maybe, you decide. But it is history.


4.In light of favor of DP over P or I, and the below statements, it seems the implication that the majority of justices do not want to revisit Slaughterhouse?


Or they couldn't agree on how to revisit it.

7x57

PatriotnMore
06-28-2010, 8:29 AM
Does the ruling through DP over P or I help, or hinder States in SCOTUS court decisions, which have laws restricting the Fed concerning guns made and sold within the state?

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:30 AM
Man that was a close call! I agree with Andrew! This has little to do with guns as has to do more with our constitutional rights! At least we know who is against the constitution! Amen!

Perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Just because some justices disagree with what the history tells us does not mean they are against the consitution. Quite the contrary, they are trying to interpret it in light of a history subject to interpretation. It may not be useful to our objectives as firearm owners to simply call four justices un-American because they ruled in a fashion with which one may disagree.

PatriotnMore
06-28-2010, 8:31 AM
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.;)


If we were talking about English, "most acute" would grammatically imply that there are situations outside the home where the need for self-defense is "less acute," and the natural sense of that is that it still exists there. However, we're actually talking about legalese, which I don't speak....

Two thoughts about that if it were idiomatic English instead of legalese--it suggests that the right definitely extends outside the home, which is good, but specifies nothing other than that there the need is "less acute." No information about how much less, or how much "need" matters given that it specifically rejects Bryer's brain-damaged "interest balancing" test. I speculate that the antis will try to use this to obtain a lower level of scrutiny outside the home, just as that one judge applied a lower level of scrutiny to hunting arms than to defensive arms. Whether that's likely to succeed and how bad it would be I will not try to guess at this time.



While the "international precedent" stuff is scary and hideous, I don't think that is what this is about. The city argued that the right wouldn't be incorporated if it was possible to imagine a civilized society without the Second Amendment, so Alito had to tell them why that wasn't the standard for incorporation.



The right to a Grand Jury indictment, for one thing.

Disturbing maybe, you decide. But it is history.



Or they couldn't agree on how to revisit it.

7x57

joefreas
06-28-2010, 8:32 AM
So what exactly will this change?

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:33 AM
If we were talking about English, "most acute" would grammatically imply that there are situations outside the home where the need for self-defense is "less acute," and the natural sense of that is that it still exists there. However, we're actually talking about legalese, which I don't speak....

Two thoughts about that if it were idiomatic English instead of legalese--it suggests that the right definitely extends outside the home, which is good, but specifies nothing other than that there the need is "less acute." No information about how much less, or how much "need" matters given that it specifically rejects Bryer's brain-damaged "interest balancing" test. I speculate that the antis will try to use this to obtain a lower level of scrutiny outside the home, just as that one judge applied a lower level of scrutiny to hunting arms than to defensive arms. Whether that's likely to succeed and how bad it would be I will not try to guess at this time.



While the "international precedent" stuff is scary and hideous, I don't think that is what this is about. The city argued that the right wouldn't be incorporated if it was possible to imagine a civilized society without the Second Amendment, so Alito had to tell them why that wasn't the standard for incorporation.



The right to a Grand Jury indictment, for one thing.

Disturbing maybe, you decide. But it is history.



Or they couldn't agree on how to revisit it.

7x57

I think Alito disagrees as he reiterated that which Heller said: regulations as to who can bear, what type and where are justified.

7x57
06-28-2010, 8:34 AM
So what exactly will this change?

What we post endlessly about on Calguns. ;)

7x57

Midian
06-28-2010, 8:34 AM
This is great news, of course.

But it should have been 9-zip instead of 5-4

This shows that the anti-constitutional enemy is still very alive and well in our country and needs to be exposed, and above all else, resisted.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 8:34 AM
Does the ruling through DP over P or I help, or hinder States which have laws restricting the Fed concerning guns made and sold within the state?

It doesnt make any difference. Incorporation is incorporation. The SECOND amendment is now incorporated, end of story.... There wont be another "Is the second Amendment incorporated against the states?" case. PorI would have been interesting for OTHER non-gun legal challenges.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:34 AM
I am stupid so please enlighten me:

1. Does this mean that the Ca handgun list will be eventually dropped?
2. Does this mean that Ca will eventually follow Federal guidelines on AW?
3. Starting from the first of next year are we still limited to 50rounds a month?

If someone has time and does not mind explaining in a few words, could he please tell me what exactly we could gain in this state from the Chicago case?

Not much, from a practical standpoint. All we have is a basis for filing suits against various regulations.

daveinwoodland
06-28-2010, 8:35 AM
While the 4 people that dissented are very troubling in the big picture this is a huge win for everyone.

PatriotnMore
06-28-2010, 8:37 AM
Thank you. I thought perhaps one or the other ruling could help or hinder SCOTUS challenges.

It doesnt make any difference. Incorporation is incorporation. The SECOND amendment is now incorporated, end of story.... There wont be another "Is the second Amendment incorporated against the states?" case. PorI would have been interesting for OTHER non-gun legal challenges.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 8:37 AM
If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

Wahoo! Thomas pushed for a more straightforward interpretation of POI but Alito wrote the opinion under due process and Slaughter House was left untouched. So it was a clear win but more ugly than we hoped. I can hardly wait to see how this plays out in California.

All we have is a basis for filing suits against various regulations.

Many of those are already filed such as Pena on The Roster. What remains now is figuring out if CA will force court trials or just fold up and repeal the laws--the AG can invalidate them but I am sure Saldana and her crew will resist to the end. Much of liberal belief is based on what is believed to be humane,equal, and fair while conservative beliefs are based on religion, liberty, and fiscal accountability, I know because I am socially liberal but RKBA and fiscally conservative. But the anti-gnners are very emotional and fearful--they will fight beyond the point of rationality. this isn't over by any means yet--they need to be handed some stunning defeats before they give up. And this was only the first big one.

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 8:37 AM
Three Cheers for the names which will ring in the annuls of history AND of our Republic preserved!

:79::jump::party::44::clap:

KATES, GURA & SIGALE, KILMER, DAVIS, & MICHEL

Tack
06-28-2010, 8:38 AM
I had hoped for more. I wish the SC had been bolder and recognized the opressive nature of the state.

It appears that it is entirely legal to require that all weapons never leave the home. It is legal to require that each cartridge or ammunition componet purchased be individually stamped and that said ammunition may be taxed at any rate the state sees fit.

'There, we let you keep them.'

Remember we are trying to protect the citizens living under machine politics. That is why I wish the SC had been bolder and foreseen the actions of a corrupt govenment.

hasserl
06-28-2010, 8:39 AM
I would just like to remind you all that if it was President Gore instead of Bush, we would not have had Alito and Roberts, and we would have lost, and the 2nd amendment would have been effectively dead with Gore's picks of Justices.

Elections matter.

Wow, great point! Keep that in mind when you vote for gov'nor this fall. The gov'nor will be making judicial appointments on many state courts.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:39 AM
While the 4 people that dissented are very troubling in the big picture this is a huge win for everyone.

I don't think the dissenters had a problem with the concept that a person should have the ability to be armed in their homes. I think the part they were troubled with is the legal ramifications of incorporation and the assumptions that underlie the reasoning the majority used.

Tacticalintervention
06-28-2010, 8:39 AM
I've been praciting law for 20 years and the observation that this is but a gate to go through to being attacking regulations is correct. This will not be solved anytime soon and the most important feature is that the ruling was narrow and noted that all types of regulations are valid.

Reversed and remanded means go back and revisit and issue a new ruling that now observes our findings on this narrow issue. That being said, the 7th Cir may strike down a portion of the ordinance relating to in home possession. Or, it could go a bit wider. Just plenty of variables as to how the ordinance was drawn, how it was framed in the original complaint and I have not read the ordinance at issue.

Sir, thank you for answering this.

monstertodd
06-28-2010, 8:40 AM
Ok, so where do we as Californians go from here?

What laws are now "unconstitutional"?

Are we going to see any major changes in California regarding gun ownership?

Low-Pressure
06-28-2010, 8:41 AM
:party:

DragRag
06-28-2010, 8:41 AM
I pray that none of the five justices that sided with the constitution on this pass while Obummer is still pres. I really miss Bush now......

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:41 AM
BTW, The Brady's are calling this a win for them. Big surprise.

http://www.bradycenter.org/

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2010, 8:41 AM
I am stupid so please enlighten me:

1. Does this mean that the Ca handgun list will be eventually dropped?
2. Does this mean that Ca will eventually follow Federal guidelines on AW?
3. Starting from the first of next year are we still limited to 50rounds a month?

If someone has time and does not mind explaining in a few words, could he please tell me what exactly we could gain in this state from the Chicago case?

1. Probably not. The CA legislature might realize they are infringing on our rights and decide to change it, but more likely they will let it go to court so it will be a while longer.

2. Same answer as 1.

3. Next year you will not be limited to 50 round per month with or without McDonald. That part of the ammo bill was dropped.

Basically, this court decision is a stepping stone. It does nothing today. You have no more or no less restrictions right now than you did yesterday.

All this says is your right to self defense applies by state law too. Now, does the state have the right to say which handguns we can have for self defense? No answer. So it will go through the courts and they will have to answer it again.

This is only the beginning. I guess the SC is doing it in this manner to be as unobtrusive as possible. They don't want to just come out and say what is unconstitutional and what is not because that would be dictating too much. Maybe they hope that the states can see where they are going with this and just take care of it themselves.

That might be fine and dandy in Free America, but that means we are going to have to keep taking it to court.

mbrown
06-28-2010, 8:42 AM
First of all, WOO HOOO! It's not p&i, but its a start...:D

Next, guayque, not to get off topic, but I was wondering how you can reconcile your support of the ACLU with the fact that they continually refuse to support the second ammendment? Not flaming you, just seriously interested. I would support the ACLU if they actually supported the entire bill of rights, not just the parts they agree with.

I was wondering the same thing. If the SCOTUS was entirely populated by card-carrying ACLU attorneys (like Ginsburg), I'm quite certain we would've lost Heller, McDonald, and everything else related to the 2A.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 8:42 AM
I am stupid so please enlighten me:

1. Does this mean that the Ca handgun list will be eventually dropped?
MAYBE

2. Does this mean that Ca will eventually follow Federal guidelines on AW? Not federal guidelines.... The AW ban probably goes down.

3. Starting from the first of next year are we still limited to 50rounds a month? I dont think thats the law as passed.

If someone has time and does not mind explaining in a few words, could he please tell me what exactly we could gain in this state from the Chicago case?


Ive used this analogy before..... Ever watch Pro Wrestling? The Script for the Tag Team matches is almost always the same.... There is a small, well loved "Good guy" (the gun owners), he has a BIG strong partner (The Pro 2a Attorneys) the Small good guyy is in the ring and the bad guys (The anti gun politicians and anti gun groups) are taking turn pummeling him..... Blatantly breaking the rules to the crowds dismay.... Each time it looks like the good guy is going to tag in his partner, the bad guys cheat and pull him back in the middle of the ring.... When the strong partner tries to rush the ring on his own the Ref (the Judges) push him back out because he didnt make the tag...

And then the good guy builds up this incredible surge of strength... He reaches out his hand as far as he can, and the tag is made... And the big strong partner runs into the ring and cleans house....

McDonald is the TAG... The attorneys can now enter the ring... And SUE for the gun owners rights....

sreiter
06-28-2010, 8:43 AM
thx roman

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:44 AM
Ok, so where do we as Californians go from here?

What laws are now "unconstitutional"?

Are we going to see any major changes in California regarding gun ownership?

File your lawsuits if you wish, but since California does not have an outright ban in home possession this really does nothing for us.

a1c
06-28-2010, 8:48 AM
I'm very happy about it.

But note, it was 5-4! Just like Heller! Everyone should pause for a moment and realize that our rights were hanging by a thread... 5-4

I'm glad we have our rights now, but we need to turn that thread into a strong rope. The way to do that is to take your non-shooting friends shooting.

You need to keep in mind that SCOTUS - as usual - did not vote on whether or not on the Second Amendment. It voted on this specific case, i.e. MacDonald vs. Chicago. Take a loot at Stevens' dissent. It's interesting.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 8:49 AM
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.

Opinions on if this helps us outside the home?

a1c
06-28-2010, 8:50 AM
I was wondering the same thing. If the SCOTUS was entirely populated by card-carrying ACLU attorneys (like Ginsburg), I'm quite certain we would've lost Heller, McDonald, and everything else related to the 2A.

Actually some local ACLU chapters have often joined suits in firearms-related cases. Don't be so quick to caricature their 2A stance. It's a lot more complicated than you seem to think.

The NRA and CGF might be at the forefront of the 2A fight, but it's organizations like the ACLU that will fight for your 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:50 AM
File your lawsuits if you wish, but since California does not have an outright ban in home possession this really does nothing for us.

Making an awful big assertion, there, aren't you? Especially when "The Right People" have said this is not the case.:nuts:

The VPC has made their statement.

OMG, PEOPLE WILL DIE!!:willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/06/28-5


Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision

WASHINGTON - June 28 - Following today's U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago that the City of Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, thus applying the Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller beyond Washington, DC, Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand issued the following statement:



"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.



"It is our hope that Chicago's citizens will follow the lead of the residents of the District of Columbia--who were stripped of their handgun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In the two years since that decision, only 900 firearms have been registered in the District that otherwise could not have been registered before the Heller ruling. The citizens of DC reject the wrong-headed notion that more guns make us safer. We know the facts prove the opposite and that areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death. We urge Chicago residents to consider these indisputable facts before considering bringing a handgun into their homes--an act that could well prove fatal to themselves or a loved one."

RRangel
06-28-2010, 8:50 AM
I think Alito disagrees as he reiterated that which Heller said: regulations as to who can bear, what type and where are justified.

That's already done with Felons, those who are mentally incapacitated, those currently intoxicated, illegal residents, et cetera. In this regard it's not whole cloth bursting of the damn.

Cool Gun Wife
06-28-2010, 8:51 AM
For me the bottom line is this: Today we won. This decision paves the way to further wins. They will take time, strategy and $$$. Good idea to keep donating to Calguns Foundation, NRA, and CRPA as these three agencies will continue to be at the forefront of the battles locally, at the State level, and Nationally in the days to come.

BTW - Thanks to the NRA for supporting this case and sending in the right argument that Alito used to write the final decision. (Oh and also for supporting G W Bush who appointed the judges, who decided the case, which preserved our Liberty....I think this ends with a house that Jack built.)

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:51 AM
You need to keep in mind that SCOTUS - as usual - did not vote on whether or not on the Second Amendment. It voted on this specific case, i.e. MacDonald vs. Chicago. Take a loot at Stevens' dissent. It's interesting.

Dissents are always interesting because they let you know what the arguments were among the justices and what was really going on behind the scenes.

Opinions on if this helps us outside the home?

Probably not.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 8:52 AM
File your lawsuits if you wish, but since California does not have an outright ban in home possession this really does nothing for us.

It gives us legal standing to attack laws on the grounds that they infringe on the 2nd does it not?

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 8:52 AM
File your lawsuits if you wish, but since California does not have an outright ban in home possession this really does nothing for us.

But the State has a ban on WHAT you can possess in your home. And bear is the other shoe yet to drop.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 8:52 AM
Probably not.

yeah, I know what you think. Anyone else?

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:52 AM
Making an awful big assertion, there, aren't you? Especially when "The Right People" have said this is not the case.:nuts:

The VPC has made their statement.

OMG, PEOPLE WILL DIE!!:willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/06/28-5

"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

dfletcher
06-28-2010, 8:53 AM
BTW, The Brady's are calling this a win for them. Big surprise.

http://www.bradycenter.org/

I definitely would not want to get involved in a fight with Paul Helmke - he must be strong as an ox to carry water and do all that spinning at the same time ....;)

I have a feeling "Son of Hizzoner" Mayor Daly will make a good Bull Conner.

guntntteacher
06-28-2010, 8:53 AM
::cheers2: ::party:

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:54 AM
But the State has a ban on WHAT you can possess in your home. And bear is the other shoe yet to drop.

The majority said that types of weapons bans are permissible. And, they re-emphasized that this is what they said in Heller. Sorry.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:55 AM
It gives us legal standing to attack laws on the grounds that they infringe on the 2nd does it not?

Yes, absolutely. The problem is that both Heller and this case states:

It is important to
keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that
prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-
nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___
(slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-
ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.

monstertodd
06-28-2010, 8:56 AM
quote from the brady center homepage:

"We can expect two things as a result of the US Supreme Courts decision in Mcdonald vs the city of Chicago the gun lobby and gun criminals (WTF????? I'm a gun criminal now?) will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail"

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center.


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?????? I'm a ****ing gun criminal now? WTF is that ****????

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 8:56 AM
From the VPC statement:

"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. (Has she had her head buried in the sand for the past 2 years?) The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. (I repeat myself!) The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.



"It is our hope that Chicago's citizens will follow the lead of the residents of the District of Columbia--who were stripped of their handgun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In the two years since that decision, only 900 firearms have been registered in the District that otherwise could not have been registered before the Heller ruling. The citizens of DC reject the wrong-headed notion that more guns make us safer. We know the facts prove the opposite and that areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death. (Guess the FBI stats and John Lott's writings mean little in light of her newly found 'facts') We urge Chicago residents to consider these indisputable facts before considering bringing a handgun into their homes--an act that could well prove fatal to themselves or a loved one."

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:57 AM
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

Really? You're really calling those who head the CGF, SAF and Alan Gura reactionaries with no law experience? Thank you for fully cementing the opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:58 AM
From the VPC statement:

Ever notice how when they see 20 firearms it's an arsenal but they consider the 900 firearms registered in DC nothing but an affirmation of their beliefs?

guayuque
06-28-2010, 8:58 AM
quote from the brady center homepage:

"We can expect two things as a result of the US Supreme Courts decision in Mcdonald vs the city of Chicago the gun lobby and gun criminals (WTF????? I'm a gun criminal now?) will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail"

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center.


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?????? I'm a ****ing gun criminal now? WTF is that ****????

With this statement he proves that he is just as ridiculously hyperbolic as some on the other side can be. That statement is just silly.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 8:58 AM
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

Im a lawyer with many years in practice.... And I disagree with almost everything you've written so far.

And btw... I HAVE read the Chicago ordinance.... And Ive read the Heller Case (which is now ALSO applicable to the States). I think you admitted to NOT reading the first, and it doesn't sound to me as you've read the second.

In fact, it sounds to me like you've only read the Stevens dissent....

I would actually love to hear your opinion of the Breyer Dissent, which seems to be arguing for a new rule Ive never heard of before.... That the Bill of Rights ONLY applies to MINORITIES?

Without question, SOME gun laws will pass even a strict scrutiny analysis (namely the ones Heller names- Felons in possession, background checks, carrying guns in "Sensitive places") but there are a LOT, RIGHT HERE in California that WONT.

thepro8
06-28-2010, 8:58 AM
I'm super excited about this as I am still a resident of chicago and they may have been had guns in my condo for a while now.

The Director
06-28-2010, 8:59 AM
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

Oh wow, you're new here. huh?

Right people refers to certain members of the Calguns Foundation. I'm sure at least one of them is a lawyer.....:p:rolleyes:

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:00 AM
Really? You're really calling those who head the CGF, SAF and Alan Gura reactionaries with no law experience? Thank you for fully cementing the opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Really? Did they say anything I have not? Did they say that you can now arm yourself with whatever you want and carry it anywhere? Did they state that this case now gives firearm owners carte blanche and all regulations are now moot? Please point out where they say so.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 9:02 AM
File your lawsuits if you wish, but since California does not have an outright ban in home possession this really does nothing for us.

For someone who proclaims to have so much knowledge you certainly choose to show so little of it in your posts.

While the specific case in McDonald is not directly related to any case in California the question of incorporation is directly related to many cases. The fact that you fail to recognize this is simply amazing

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 9:02 AM
Ever notice how when they see 20 firearms it's an arsenal but they consider the 900 firearms registered in DC nothing but an affirmation of their beliefs?

lol, yeah, how convenient. :TFH:

joedogboy
06-28-2010, 9:02 AM
Ok, so where do we as Californians go from here?

What laws are now "unconstitutional"?

Are we going to see any major changes in California regarding gun ownership?

The same laws that have always been unconstitutional are still unconstitutional - just with a better precedent/clarification to force the courts into admitting they are unconstitutional.

We now have to take these unconstitutional laws to court.

If we put together good cases, there will be big changes for CA gun owners. The extent of the changes will depend on the quality of the challenges, and the willingness of CA courts and politicians to abide by the constitution and the clarification provided by this ruling.

7x57
06-28-2010, 9:03 AM
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

You're new around here, aren't you? :rolleyes:

7x57

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:03 AM
Im a lawyer with many years in practice.... And I disagree with almost everything you've written so far.

And btw... I HAVE read the Chicago ordinance.... And Ive read the Heller Case (which is now ALSO applicable to the States). I think you admitted to NOT reading the first, and it doesn't sound to me as you've read the second.

In fact, it sounds to me like you've only read the Stevens dissent....

I would actually love to hear your opinion of the Breyer Dissent, which seems to be arguing for a new rule Ive never heard of before.... That the Bill of Rights ONLY applies to MINORITIES?

No, i read Alito's majority now very carefully. It does nothing other than state an ordinance with an outright ban of weapons, including in the home, is unconstitution and got their by incorporation. All types of regulations are still going to be valid in the majority view.

if you have indeed been practicing law for may years you do a disservice by suggestion that the opinion does more than it says.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:03 AM
Really? Did they say anything I have not? Did they say that you can now arm yourself with whatever you want and carry it anywhere? Did they state that this case now gives firearm owners carte blanche and all regulations are now moot? Please point out where they say so.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a pissing match. You're both right and wrong but being disingenuous on the whole. This case does have fairly large ramifications for Ca. End of discussion with you.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:04 AM
You're new around here, aren't you? :rolleyes:

7x57

I suppose. but, I was just answering hyperbole with hyperbole, after having read the majority opinion carefully.

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 9:04 AM
The majority said that types of weapons bans are permissible. And, they re-emphasized that this is what they said in Heller. Sorry.

Not when the standard will be "reasonable" or better. Sorry.

Monte
06-28-2010, 9:04 AM
BTW, The Brady's are calling this a win for them. Big surprise.

http://www.bradycenter.org/

Text of their press release:
Statement of Paul Helmke on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
Jun 28, 2010

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.

“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.

“Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today’s decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws.”

And the article on their front page:

The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations

In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

The Court has rejected the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

The Brady Center, joined by several national law enforcement groups, filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to allow for “reasonable” gun laws.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court determined that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:05 AM
I'm not going to turn this thread into a pissing match. You're both right and wrong but being disingenuous on the whole. This case does have fairly large ramifications for Ca. End of discussion with you.

I am happy to be proven wrong. Please explain how this decision does anything to California laws. Maybe I missed something.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 9:05 AM
Really? Did they say anything I have not? Did they say that you can now arm yourself with whatever you want and carry it anywhere? Did they state that this case now gives firearm owners carte blanche and all regulations are now moot? Please point out where they say so.

Otis McDonald did not sue to "arm himself with whatever he wants and carry it anywhere"... Nice strawman argument.

This case, like ALL legal cases is LIMITED TO THE FACTS.

The Law being challenged is the Chicago Handgun Ban.

It would violate the advisory opinion rule for the Court to issue a ruling like you have presented. Yet you seem to be arguing the lack of such an order is a LOSS???

GTFO.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 9:05 AM
Indeed, but let's not forget to thank Mr. David G. Sigale, co-counsel in McDonald based out of Chicago. A fine man and an excellent advocate.

Three Cheers for the names which will ring in the annuls history AND of our Republic preserved!

:79::jump::party::44::clap:

KATES, GURA, KILMER, DAVIS, & MICHEL

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 9:07 AM
I am happy to be proven wrong. Please explain how this decision does anything to California laws. Maybe I missed something.

Yes, beginning with this opinion and likely proceeding from there.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:07 AM
As per susal, a descent into name calling. What a waste.

Read people:

It is important to
keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that
prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-
nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___
(slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-
ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.

taperxz
06-28-2010, 9:07 AM
What i read is that the opinion is that we have the right to have a firearm at home to protect ourselves, family and property. Define HOME! State? County? City? Can we protect our family, ourselves while in our vehicle? Can we protect ourselves, family, and property in our HOME state, county city. Where we pay taxes and reside. Our domicile!

I believe with the words used, home can be used in a way not just describing 4 walls and a roof!! Otherwise people who have no "house" would be left without their 2A rights. This would then be discrimination which the 14th would prohibit! JMO

Stan_Humphries
06-28-2010, 9:08 AM
In the way that Justice Scalia constructed Heller as a foundation for future cases to establish incorporation (as we see today), Justice Alito wrote McDonald to call for a "strict scrutiny" standard of review by classifying the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental in the Fourteenth Amendment context. Plurality Slip Opinion at 31.

Sweet.

Serpentine
06-28-2010, 9:08 AM
Looks like the 10 day waiting period is a goner, but does it mean some poor sacrificial dealer has to violate that CA regulation, then get charged and taken to court to strike this regulation down?


.



.

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 9:09 AM
If nothing else (and I hope there is) the Supremes have, at last, struck down the thought prevelant in Californian courts, that the Second does not apply to individuals in California.

As that has been the cause of so many adverse decisions for us in the past, we must surely cheer knowing that such cases would have a different outcome today.

As (IIRC) none of those cases had anything to do with arms in the homes, then I believe , Guayuque to the contrary, that this bodes well for future decisions, such as Pena and Sykes, and others rarely discussed. The specific ruling was narrow, perhaps, but left open the probability that it might well apply in broader terms as well.Certainly a court ruling on the margin is going to be careful not to make a contrary jusgement that might well be overruled by the Supremes at some later date.

As Billy Jack put it in an email to me: "Hoo Rah!"

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:10 AM
"Right people" Who are they? Reactionaries with no training in the practice of law?

Too good not to save for posterity in my sig.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 9:10 AM
Yes, absolutely. The problem is that both Heller and this case states:

It is important to
keep in mind that Heller...



It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

Show me where it says they can ban an entire class of weapons? And since they repeatedly affirm it is a fundamental right we at least get intermediate scrutiny right? Not sure what your angle here is...

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 9:11 AM
Indeed, but let's not forget to thank Mr. David G. Sigale, co-counsel in McDonald based out of Chicago. A fine man and an excellent advocate.

Most certainly!!! and to their legal staffs too!!!!

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:11 AM
In the way that Justice Scalia constructed Heller as a foundation for future cases to establish incorporation (as we see today), Justice Alito wrote McDonald to call for a "strict scrutiny" standard of review by classifying the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental in the Fourteenth Amendment context. Plurality Slip Opinion at 31.

Sweet.

Maybe, but does that mean that a higher level of scrutiny would be applied only to in home possession? Sure seems that way at this point. Could they majority be receptive to applying a higher level of scrutinty down the line on another context? Perhaps, but this opinion does not go there. it is very narrow.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 9:11 AM
No. Challenging bad law via criminal cases, especially in California, is a way to lose quickly and make it hurt in the process.

Hang tight, all, we may or may not have something (some things?) in mind... ;)


Looks like the 10 day waiting period is a goner, but does it mean some poor sacrificial dealer has to violate that CA regulation, then get charged and taken to court to strike this regulation down?


.



.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 9:11 AM
This is great news, of course.

But it should have been 9-zip instead of 5-4

This shows that the anti-constitutional enemy is still very alive and well in our country and needs to be exposed, and above all else, resisted.Vanquished, extinguished, expunged, or at very least removed would do better.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2010, 9:13 AM
As per susal, a descent into name calling. What a waste.

Read people:

It is important to
keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that
prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-
nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___
(slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-
ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.

Yes you are correct that there can still be restrictions. However, it is far from decided what restrictions there are other than those specifically stated. So can California restrict what type of handguns I can carry? Can they restrict assault weapons? I forget off the top of my head which majority said it in Heller, but they said restrictions should be on dangerous and unusual weapons.

So despite there being a hole there for some restrictions still, there will be many court cases now that decide exactly how far that goes. Many have already been filed and were simply waiting for this day.

Although today's victory is only a battle, the war is still going our way. Sure it would be nice to have it all over right now, but that simply isn't what happened and we must just keep on going.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:14 AM
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

Show me where it says they can ban an entire class of weapons? And since they repeatedly affirm it is a fundamental right we at least get intermediate scrutiny right? Not sure what your angle here is...

Angle? Not sure I understand. i am simply sharing my opinion on what this case says and what it does not say.

It does not invalidate anything, ANYTHING but what Chicago tried to do in terms of outright bans. It reiterates regulation of all sorts. It does not apply any standard of scrutiny. It incorporates thus providing an opening. That's it.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:14 AM
Just got my weekly money pleading from Sarah Brady. Which is it, 240 or 260? Pual says one thing and Sarah says another. Lies, all

Just this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, and ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Even though the ruling only recognizes a right to guns in the home for self-defense, I've been in this fight long enough to know the gun lobby will immediately launch its biggest assault yet on all sensible gun laws.

Every crucial life-saving law we have fought so hard to enact will now be only one lawsuit — and one judge — away from being wiped off the books.

But, I am here to tell you that, with your help, we will fight these attacks in courts across the country. And we should prevail in every one of them.

Why am I so sure? Because in the two years since the Heller v. D.C. decision, there have been more than 260 challenges to gun laws brought by the gun lobby and gun criminals.

Thanks to the hard work of our staff and allies, and your support, nearly every one of those challenges has been summarily dismissed.

Please donate now to help us preserve gun laws that protect you and your community.

We will fight with everything we've got to stop the gun lobby from using the courts to advance its agenda of guns anywhere, at anytime, for anyone.

That's why I ask you for your immediate support — whatever the amount. Your donation is fully tax-deductible.

Click here to give to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

We have our work cut out for us. The gun lobby is a well-funded, formidable, but beatable foe. So far, nearly every court around the country has agreed with our arguments for common sense gun laws.

At this critical moment, your support will make a big difference. Please make a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.





How I read it, "Whaaaaaa! We're losing, send us money!"

kar6man
06-28-2010, 9:14 AM
So I see that this is going to open the door here in California for challenges to some of the laws passes in the last couple years. What is the likelihood of AB962 being challenged by this ruling?

mzimmers
06-28-2010, 9:14 AM
I am happy to be proven wrong. Please explain how this decision does anything to California laws. Maybe I missed something.

Guayuque: I asked a very similar question a few weeks ago. The responses I got (from people who have earned my deep respect on matters such as this) were along the lines that, while there may be no immediate and direct impact on CA gun owners, the decision paves the way for subsequent challenges to many anti-gun laws on the ground that they violate the 2A.

Another way to look at this, if you don't think it mattered to us, is...consider the implications if the decision had gone the *other* way.

This is a big victory for all fans of RKBA everywhere.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:15 AM
Yes you are correct that there can still be restrictions. However, it is far from decided what restrictions there are other than those specifically stated. So can California restrict what type of handguns I can carry? Can they restrict assault weapons? I forget off the top of my head which majority said it in Heller, but they said restrictions should be on dangerous and unusual weapons.

So despite there being a hole there for some restrictions still, there will be many court cases now that decide exactly how far that goes. Many have already been filed and were simply waiting for this day.

Although today's victory is only a battle, the war is still going our way. Sure it would be nice to have it all over right now, but that simply isn't what happened and we must just keep on going.

I do not disagree with any of these comments. Yes, what regulations California can issue may be attacked but I do not think much in California will change in the next few years.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 9:15 AM
I really wish they'd lay off the mentioning of schools.

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 9:15 AM
RD, food for thought.

It's my opinion, (and soley that, so Guayuque so doesn't get an arrhythmia with his favorite use of prose, hyperbole) that it's possible the concurring Justices did not address PoI for a couple of reasons. First, and least so, Gura's argument was not strong enough to abandon existing precedent, nor was the NRA's support of SDP any weaker.

Second, IIRC, no other position was submitted on behalf of a group with an interest in having PoI decided to further a cause outside of pro-2A parties, such as pro-abortion groups or anti-Prop 8 groups, etc. In this latter regard, I believe the Justices may have felt that absent having to address their (missing) AC briefs, they felt it best to leave it to those groups to make their arguments to the SC if they got their own case there, based upon the seperate and distinct arguments, facts and plaintiffs in their specfic cases, and not allowing it piggyback on the NRA case.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:16 AM
Guayuque: I asked a very similar question a few weeks ago. The responses I got (from people who have earned my deep respect on matters such as this) were along the lines that, while there may be no immediate and direct impact on CA gun owners, the decision paves the way for subsequent challenges to many anti-gun laws on the ground that they violate the 2A.

Another way to look at this, if you don't think it mattered to us, is...consider the implications if the decision had gone the *other* way.

This is a big victory for all fans of RKBA everywhere.

I do not disgaree. What I do point out is that those suggesting this is some talisman that will make us free from regulation and that things will be different tomorrow are incorrect.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 9:17 AM
McDonald is the TAG... The attorneys can now enter the ring... And SUE for the gun owners rights....

That's the way I see it. People hoping for the social freedoms under POI didn't get them--which is why I think the liberal wing dissented. While I am with Judge Thomas and wish we did get POI (I wanted a jury trial for my next traffic ticket), RKBA is what I wanted most by far and we got it but we have many court battles ahead.

Let's hope GB our CA AG nullifies some egregious laws right off to quicken the pace--but with his Democratic governorship campaign on the line, he might prefer to let the courts work it out and not lose Democratic votes (of course where are they going to flee to--Whitman. Hah!).

Legasat
06-28-2010, 9:17 AM
I am thrilled we got incorporation!! Now we need get started on the pending cases so we can work out all of the other details still needed!

:Ivan:

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:18 AM
RD, food for thought.

It's my opinion, (and soley that, so Guayuque so doesn't get an arrhythmia with his favorite use of prose, hyperbole) that it's possible the concurring Justices did not address PoI for a couple of reasons. First, and least so, Gura's argument was not strong enough to abandon existing precedent, nor was the NRA's support of SDP any weaker.

Second, IIRC, no other position was submitted on behalf of a group with an interest in having PoI decided to further a cause outside of pro-2A parties, such as pro-abortion groups or anti-Prop 8 groups, etc. In this latter regard, I believe the Justices may have felt that absent having to address their (missing) AC briefs, they felt it best to leave it to those groups to make their arguments to the SC if they got their own case there, based upon the seperate and distinct arguments, facts and plaintiffs in their specfic cases, and not allowing it piggyback on the NRA case.

Perhaps, but I would add that they simply did not want to visit that treacherous ground if not absolutely necessary.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 9:19 AM
I am happy to be proven wrong. Please explain how this decision does anything to California laws. Maybe I missed something.

Easy.

Lets start at the top.... Say the California Constitution?


The California Constitution has no 2nd Amendment Analog in it. And that has been an issue in DOZENS of LOSING gun cases at the state level over the last 40 years or so....

Guess what... That has changed.

Nordyke v. King, which has been in limbo for the last year waiting for this decision is now obviously valid. You can read up on that here:
http://romandad.com/Nordyke.pdf.pdf
That has changed.

Read Hickman v. Block on Concealed Carry. Heres a link for you http://romandad.com/Hickman.pdf

You'll notice that Hickman hinges on the fact that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms (and the court hints, if only in the thoroughness they discuss it, that if there were, their decision would be different).

That has changed. (and in fact, has now been specifically abrogated by Nordyke).

Read Fresno Rifle and Pistol v Van De Kamp- AKA "the Assault weapons case" (sorry, I dont have a link for that as my site focuses more on CCW, but if you put your 20 years of practice to use, Im sure you will find it)...

ALSO Abrogated by Nordyke....

THAT has changed.


Sykes, puralta and Pena have been on hold awaiting incorporation.

That has changed...


Shall I continue?

rkt88edmo
06-28-2010, 9:19 AM
All I see is this

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep andbear arms among those fundamental rights necessary toour system of ordered liberty.
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

Now we just need to work on SELF defense where ever the SELF is - that is to say - EVERYWHERE.

ZRT650
06-28-2010, 9:20 AM
So what are the exact implications this will have regarding CCW in no issue counties such as San Mateo and San Francisco?

Mstrty
06-28-2010, 9:20 AM
690 people viewing 2A WOW!

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 9:20 AM
Angle? Not sure I understand. i am simply sharing my opinion on what this case says and what it does not say.

It does not invalidate anything, ANYTHING but what Chicago tried to do in terms of outright bans. It reiterates regulation of all sorts. It does not apply any standard of scrutiny. It incorporates thus providing an opening. That's it.

Uhhh, it invalidates California's claim that the 2nd amendment does not apply here and it calls the 2nd a fundamental right. That's a damn sight more than we had yesterday.

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:21 AM
Interesting that they incorporated under the Due Process and privileges and immunities, but somehow sidestepped Slaughter-house?

taperxz
06-28-2010, 9:21 AM
All I see is this


Now we just need to work on SELF defense where ever the SELF is - that is to say - EVERYWHERE.

Like i said define HOME.

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 9:21 AM
I really wish they'd lay off the mentioning of schools.

It's always going to be a thorn in our sides as long as they (the antis) can make it an emotional appeal.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:22 AM
Easy.

Lets start at the top.... Say the California Constitution?


The California Constitution has no 2nd Amendment Analog in it. And that has been an issue in DOZENS of LOSING gun cases at the state level over the last 40 years or so....

Guess what... That has changed.

Nordyke v. King, which has been in limbo for 8 months waiting for this decision is now obviously valid. You can read up on that here:
http://romandad.com/Nordyke.pdf.pdf
That has changed.

Read Hickman v. Block on Concealed Carry. Heres a link for you http://romandad.com/Hickman.pdf

You'll notice that Hickman hinges on the fact that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms (and the court hints, if only in the thoroughness they discuss it, that if their were, their decision would be different).

That has changed. (and in fact, has now been specifically abrogated by Nordyke).

Read Fresno Rifle and Pistol (sorry, I dont have a link for that as my site focuses more on CCW, but if you put your 20 years of practice to use, Im sure you will find it)...

ALSO Abrogated by Nordyke....

THAT has changed.


Sykes, puralta and Pena have been on hold awaiting incorporation.

That has changed...


Shall I continue?

Well, since you have not made any argument that any gun laws in California will change as a result of this case, yes. What California law is now unconstitutional given MacDonald and Heller?

IGOTDIRT4U
06-28-2010, 9:22 AM
Uhhh, it invalidates California's claim that the 2nd amendment does not apply here and it calls the 2nd a fundamental right. That's a damn sight more than we had yesterday.

Well, at least now we don't have to change the State constitution.

guayuque
06-28-2010, 9:23 AM
So what are the exact implications this will have regarding CCW in no issue counties such as San Mateo and San Francisco?

Probably nothing since you can carry in home anyway.

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 9:23 AM
I am stupid so please enlighten me:

1. Does this mean that the Ca handgun list will be eventually dropped?
2. Does this mean that Ca will eventually follow Federal guidelines on AW?
3. Starting from the first of next year are we still limited to 50rounds a month?

If someone has time and does not mind explaining in a few words, could he please tell me what exactly we could gain in this state from the Chicago case?

1. This case does not affect the CA roster directly. There is already a case under way in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the roster. That case is on hold awaiting this decision. Now that case can move forward.

2. No, it does not mean California is bound to federal guidelines on AW. Overturning the clusterflock of AW laws in CA is going to require more litigation. Today's ruling kicks open the door for that litigation... and in federal court.

3. We will not be limited to 50 rounds per month either way. That restriction was left out of the bill that the Governor signed. Anyone who tells you that there is such a restriction coming in January is blowing smoke up your kilt.

Simply put, this ruling puts the full force of the constitution's guarantees of Amendment Two rights against state and local government. There will now have to be years, if not decades, of follow on litigation to determine what is and is not reasonable restriction on the right by state and local government.

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:23 AM
Uhhh, it invalidates California's claim that the 2nd amendment does not apply here and it calls the 2nd a fundamental right. That's a damn sight more than we had yesterday.

Well actually we did have that here in the 9th circuit from Nordyke v. King, although it was certainly on shaky ground until today.

Glock22Fan
06-28-2010, 9:24 AM
I do not disgaree. What I do point out is that those suggesting this is some talisman that will make us free from regulation and that things will be different tomorrow are incorrect.

I know of nobody who has seriously postulated that this would be the case.

We are all expecting to have to fight this case by case in the courts over the next several years.

You appear to be saying that any such fight is a waste of time.

You may be an attorney - but you are only one attorney. There are a lot of attorneys on this board, and associated with the expected cases, that totally disagree with you.

taperxz
06-28-2010, 9:24 AM
Well, since you have not made any argument that any gun laws in California will change as a result of this case, yes. What California law is now unconstitutional given MacDonald and Heller?

Yes because the California constitution also states it must adhere to the constitution on the United States of America

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:25 AM
Easy.

Lets start at the top.... Say the California Constitution?


The California Constitution has no 2nd Amendment Analog in it. And that has been an issue in DOZENS of LOSING gun cases at the state level over the last 40 years or so....

Guess what... That has changed.

Nordyke v. King, which has been in limbo for the last year waiting for this decision is now obviously valid. You can read up on that here:
http://romandad.com/Nordyke.pdf.pdf
That has changed.

Read Hickman v. Block on Concealed Carry. Heres a link for you http://romandad.com/Hickman.pdf

You'll notice that Hickman hinges on the fact that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms (and the court hints, if only in the thoroughness they discuss it, that if there were, their decision would be different).

That has changed. (and in fact, has now been specifically abrogated by Nordyke).

Read Fresno Rifle and Pistol v Van De Kamp- AKA "the Assault weapons case" (sorry, I dont have a link for that as my site focuses more on CCW, but if you put your 20 years of practice to use, Im sure you will find it)...

ALSO Abrogated by Nordyke....

THAT has changed.


Sykes, puralta and Pena have been on hold awaiting incorporation.

That has changed...


Shall I continue?
Good response Romandad, thanks for a good summary.

bulgron
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
I do not disgaree. What I do point out is that those suggesting this is some talisman that will make us free from regulation and that things will be different tomorrow are incorrect.

Who on this message board has suggested that this case "is some talisman that will make us free from regulation and that things will be different tomorrow"?

People around here know exactly what this case means, and those that don't generally do a good job of switching from 'transmit' to 'receive' so they can find out.

The gun rights community is building a wall, brick by brick, that will prevent the federal and state governments from infringing on our right to keep AND bear arms. We will never totally regain all our freedoms, but we can beat the statists back so that at least we can purchase arms and carry them in public for the purpose of self defense without too much of a huge burden imposed by the state. But we're a long way from even that.

As I said, we're building a wall, brick by brick. Heller was the foundation. McDonald is the next layer up.

Lots of building to do. And almost everyone around here knows it too.

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
Like i said define HOME.

Home is pretty well defined already, it's you residence. Even CA law recognizes campsites and other temporary residences as your "home" with regard to firearms and self defense laws.

mzimmers
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
I do not disgaree. What I do point out is that those suggesting this is some talisman that will make us free from regulation and that things will be different tomorrow are incorrect.

OK, but...I've not seen a single post where someone indicates that he seriously believed this would happen. Perhaps you've created a straw man?

We residents of CA built this problem (along with many, many others) over a period of decades, with our complacent attitude toward incompetent leaders. We're not going to undo those mistakes overnight.

Lone_Gunman
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
Well actually we did have that here in the 9th circuit from Nordyke v. King, although it was certainly on shaky ground until today.

Didn't we only have it for a little while until they went en banc? I thought they went en banc and then put the whole thing on hold till after McDonald.

7x57
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
Interesting that they incorporated under the Due Process and privileges and immunities, but somehow sidestepped Slaughter-house?

Where did they incorporate under P&I? It appears that a great deal of ink was spilled saying that they declined to touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel, and more ink spilled saying that some of the dissenters never the less concurred that they would not touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel.

Thomas was game to touch. Say, didn't the left insist that this was his problem in the first place? Guess they were right--or did they mean some other kind of touching? :D

7x57

taperxz
06-28-2010, 9:29 AM
Home is pretty well defined already, it's you residence. Even CA law recognizes campsites and other temporary residences as your "home" with regard to firearms and self defense laws.

Home state? Home town? ect. What if you are homeless?

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 9:31 AM
Well, since you have not made any argument that any gun laws in California will change as a result of this case, yes. What California law is now unconstitutional given MacDonald and Heller?
Who has argued ANY California law would be directly effected by McDonald? Chicago and its suburbs are the ONLY places where such an ordinance exists....

But yes, I DO ARGUE (again, read the cases cited) that California law WILL be changing based on cases that can be brought thanks to McDonald.

1. The arbitrary and capricious licensing of the public bearing of functional firearms, both openly and concealed under $12050's "Good Cause" clause will be struck.

2. The "assault weapon ban" which outlaws modern, self-loading rifles, the most commonly owned long gun owned by lawfully abiding citizens, will be struck.

3. Draconian regulations on ammunition, required for the right of self defense will be struck.

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:31 AM
Where did they incorporate under P&I? It appears that a great deal of ink was spilled saying that they declined to touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel, and more ink spilled saying that some of the dissenters never the less concurred that they would not touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel.

Thomas was game to touch. Say, didn't the left insist that this was his problem in the first place? Guess they were right--or did they mean some other kind of touching? :D

7x57

I'm reading this:

Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In inter-preting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordi-nary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

But yeah they specifically refused to reexamine the historic P&I cases, then went right on to mention how P&I protected 2A.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:31 AM
nothing in California will change soon.
I am quite ignorant of the law and will freely admit as such. I know enough , however, to say this is flat wrong, and I am sure I am right, to the tune of another $50 sent to the CGF today. Anybody else that(or more) sure today?:43:

Uxi
06-28-2010, 9:32 AM
Nothing changes right now in California, that's for sure. McDonald opens the door to challenge many of these useless and arbitrary laws, though, and that's a good thing!

MasterYong
06-28-2010, 9:33 AM
Wow. This thread went downhill quickly.

Lotsa troll food being left lying around, where any bridge-dweller can find it...

/jus' sayin'

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:35 AM
Didn't we only have it for a little while until they went en banc? I thought they went en banc and then put the whole thing on hold till after McDonald.

Yeah, I guess it doesn't matter now, the issue is settled. The next several decades (or longer) will show how far the right extends.

And for those worried about the 5-4 ruling, remember that many important rulings were 5-4, and much of that law has lasted over a century.

CHS
06-28-2010, 9:35 AM
Just got my weekly money pleading from Sarah Brady. Which is it, 240 or 260? Pual says one thing and Sarah says another. Lies, all
I've been in this fight long enough to know the gun lobby will immediately launch its biggest assault yet on all sensible gun


Sarah, you ignoramus, I *AM* the gun lobby, and I fully support this assault on striking down your "sensible" constitutional encroachments.

Oh wait, there's no such thing as "sensible" when it comes to violating the constitution.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 9:37 AM
Alito:

Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 9:37 AM
Where did they incorporate under P&I? It appears that a great deal of ink was spilled saying that they declined to touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel, and more ink spilled saying that some of the dissenters never the less concurred that they would not touch P&I with a ten-foot gavel.

Thomas was game to touch. Say, didn't the left insist that this was his problem in the first place? Guess they were right--or did they mean some other kind of touching? :D

7x57

I see it your way--in fact, I posted earlier this:

Thomas pushed for a more straightforward interpretation of POI but Alito wrote the opinion under due process and Slaughter House was left untouched. So it was a clear win but more ugly than we hoped. I can hardly wait to see how this plays out in California.

Matt C
06-28-2010, 9:37 AM
I am quite ignorant of the law and will freely admit as such. I know enough , however, to say this is flat wrong, and I am sure I am right, to the tune of another $50 sent to the CGF today. Anybody else that(or more) sure today?:43:

Keep donating, but it will be years before we see substantive permanent changes in the law. If fact, that's exactly why you need to keep donating, these cases take lot of time and man(lawyer) hours to fight and win. Patience and persistence is key.

CHS
06-28-2010, 9:38 AM
Who has argued ANY California law would be directly effected by McDonald? Chicago and its suburbs are the ONLY places where such an ordinance exists....

But yes, I DO ARGUE (again, read the cases cited) that California law WILL be changing based on cases that can be brought thanks to McDonald.

1. The arbitrary and capricious licensing of the public bearing of functional firearms, both openly and concealed under $12050's "Good Cause" clause will be struck.

2. The "assault weapon ban" which outlaws modern, self-loading rifles, the most commonly owned long gun owned by lawfully abiding citizens, will be struck.

3. Draconian regulations on ammunition, required for the right of self defense will be struck.

Don't forget, handguns that only become "unsafe" and not for sale in California if a check is not mailed to Sacramento. Or guns that are the wrong color.

Sam
06-28-2010, 9:38 AM
This is great news! Now let's get our laws taken care of. Hopefully I can spend some time today reading the opinion. We should all make sure to donate what we can to CGF. Thank you to everyone who made this possible!

rromeo
06-28-2010, 9:38 AM
"We can expect two things as a result of the US Supreme Courts decision in Mcdonald vs the city of Chicago the gun lobby and gun criminals (WTF????? I'm a gun criminal now?) will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail"

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center.


You are confident you guys will continue to fail? At least you're a realist.

Nose Nuggets
06-28-2010, 9:39 AM
Whats with all the missing spaces between words, odd hyphenations and other strange spellings? i couldn't imagine reading this as a English teacher.