PDA

View Full Version : EFFECTS of McDonald


savageevo
06-28-2010, 7:52 AM
Ok, Now we have our victory, What will change in CA, I have been out of the loop for a while and just catching up. Please don't say search, because I haven'had my coffe yet:D. Are we incorporated or do we still have to go through hoops to get it. thanks to all who already had there starbucks.:rolleyes:

Exile Machine
06-28-2010, 7:56 AM
Have a look at this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=316153

383green
06-28-2010, 7:57 AM
Nothing changes immediately, but now the Nordyke, Peña and Sykes cases can resume progress.

Librarian
06-28-2010, 8:05 AM
Some lawsuits have been on hold for this result. Those will now go forward, consistent with the court calendars where those suits have been filed.

I believe some lawsuits have been held up before filing; I expect a number of those to be filed in the near future.

Most existing laws which appear to conflict with this decision will remain in force until a lawsuit invalidates them. Some such lawsuits will uphold some laws.

This decision is somewhat like having a pile of lumber and a keg of nails, and someone has finally handed us a hammer. It may not be (probably is not) the only tool needed. What might be built is not completely determined, and the actual construction can go well or ill.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:17 AM
Can someone give me a firm answer as to whether or not Presser, Miller, and Cruickshank are now dead law? The way I read it, they are.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 8:23 AM
Cruikshank is more or less dead, Presser wasn't addressed, and Miller untouched. They essentially said as little as possible to anything meaningful.

Paragun
06-28-2010, 8:25 AM
So why can't Califorina be smart like these cities and just repell the unconstutional laws? Yea, I know...



In the months following the Heller decision, handgun bans were repealed in the suburbs of Wilmette,[96] Morton Grove,[97] Evanston,[98] and Winnetka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Illinois

CaliforniaLiberal
06-28-2010, 8:26 AM
No, Presser, Miller, and Cruikshank as well as Slaughterhouse are all alive and well.

Looks like no bombshells in McDonald. From a quick read it seems that they were very careful to let all the old cases stand and to Incorporate through Due Process.

Check back for more details, there's more than 200 pages to read.

liketoshoot
06-28-2010, 8:27 AM
Like Librarian says I'll now wait and see what is hammered out by this.
I will say I'm very happy right now, and hope we will be allowed to own some of the nicer toys out there when this is finished.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 8:27 AM
Cruikshank is more or less dead, Presser wasn't addressed, and Miller untouched. They essentially said as little as possible to anything meaningful.

Presser was addressed. Not arguing, just saying, Alito did mention it. He also stated that be definition these three laws held that the 2nd only applied to the Fed. By McDonald, wouldn't all three then be dead.

As I said, Yellowfin, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand. :D

bodger
06-28-2010, 8:34 AM
Like Librarian says I'll now wait and see what is hammered out by this.
I will say I'm very happy right now, and hope we will be allowed to own some of the nicer toys out there when this is finished.


I have all the toys I need for now. (Well, maybe the next few weeks:D)

I want my CCW!

tiki
06-28-2010, 9:13 AM
I'm not too happy about today's decision. I'm happy about Incorporation, but the rest troubles me. Why?

I am shocked that anyone on a panel of justices appointed to uphold the Constitution of this country would rule that one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution would not apply to states. This shows how close we are, one vote, from having cases in the future go against us, essentially making Heller and McDonald have little effect.

I keep hearing the emphasis on personal protection when people discuss Heller. (I won't go into the "in the home" part). So, when you throw "personal protection" in with "in common use" language, I can easily see how a liberal leaning court would, in the future, rule that "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" are not in common use for self defense. Yeah, we can all say that our AR-15s are for home protection, but I can see how a court can rule that way in the context of personal protection. I hope i'm wrong, but when I see people like Sotomayor and Kagan on the court, anything is possible.

I was elated with Heller, even taking the day off to knock back some champagne and call friends that don't follow the court stuff, but, I just don't feel it this morning. I hope i'm wrong, I really do.

Crom
06-28-2010, 9:18 AM
I think McDonald will have a great impact in California and on our future. I am disappointed that not more Justices sided with the majority though. That part does indeed bother me.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 9:22 AM
I am shocked that anyone on a panel of justices appointed to uphold the Constitution of this country would rule that one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution would not apply to states. This shows how close we are, one vote, from having cases in the future go against us, essentially making Heller and McDonald have little effect.

I agree that it is disingenuous to argue that one of the rights the founders chose to enumerate in the constitution is somehow NOT fundamental.

I keep hearing the emphasis on personal protection when people discuss Heller. (I won't go into the "in the home" part). So, when you throw "personal protection" in with "in common use" language, I can easily see how a liberal leaning court would, in the future, rule that "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" are not in common use for self defense. Yeah, we can all say that our AR-15s are for home protection, but I can see how a court can rule that way in the context of personal protection. I hope i'm wrong, but when I see people like Sotomayor and Kagan on the court, anything is possible.

It is possible that the 10 rd. magazine ban could be hard to defeat on 2A grounds for the reasons you suggest. However; don't confuse "self defense" with "personal protection" while personal protection is pretty narrow, "self defense" can be seen as a pretty broad concept.



I was elated with Heller, even taking the day off to knock back some champagne and call friends that don't follow the court stuff, but, I just don't feel it this morning. I hope i'm wrong, I really do.

My suspicion is that, like most people, the nuance of Incorporation was lost on you at the time Heller was released. Many of the things people expected from Heller will flow from Heller + McDonald. Since Heller defined (or redefined if you count Miller) Second Amendment jurisprudence and McDonald only incorporated that definition against the states we essentially have an open book. the key is to make sure that good lawyers like Kilmer and Gura et. al. are the authors filling the pages of that book and not people like Gorski.

OneSevenDeuce
06-28-2010, 9:22 AM
I agree with some of the posters who say that this is a great day, but unsure as to the future of gun legislation. I too was shocked to see such a close margin in this decision. Anti gun forces have and will continue to push for anti gun justices anywhere they can while Obama is in office. I think now is the time to attempt a massive push to get most of these pro gun lawsuits going. The momentum is with us, and we need to take advantage of it.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 9:27 AM
My suspicion is that, like most people, the nuance of Incorporation was lost on you at the time Heller was released. Many of the things people expected from Heller will flow from Heller + McDonald. Since Heller defined (or redefined if you count Miller) Second Amendment jurisprudence and McDonald only incorporated that definition against the states we essentially have an open book. the key is to make sure that good lawyers like Kilmer and Gura et. al. are the authors filling the pages of that book and not people like Gorski.


I think a lot of people assumed that heller would "change everything". It didn't.
Now people are skeptical about whether or not McDonald will "change everything". It won't.

What these cases do is open the door. Some very smart people still have to make the right arguments at the right time to get us through that door.

It's been said before, but these cases are part of a process. They're not a silver bullet.

Legasat
06-28-2010, 9:28 AM
Many of these restrictions in CA that have already been challenged, lost on the fact that CA has no 2A. Now we effectively do. I don't believe that this will make any of the current law automatically unconstitutional, it just opens up the door for new cases based on this new decision.

Is that how you guys see it?

Nodda Duma
06-28-2010, 9:29 AM
Keep in mind that incorporation of other Constitutional amendments were by narrow rulings, too.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 9:29 AM
I think a lot of people assumed that heller would "change everything". It didn't.
Now people are skeptical about whether or not McDonald will "change everything". It won't.

What these cases do is open the door. Some very smart people still have to make the right arguments at the right time to get us through that door.

It's been said before, but these cases are part of a process. They're not a silver bullet.I still like the way Gene put it. This case is the anvil with which the other cases will be hammered to death(or something to that effect).

pgg
06-28-2010, 9:30 AM
I have all the toys I need for now. (Well, maybe the next few weeks:D)

Not me ...

I want a couple suppressors ...

Today's decision is cause for some (brief) relieved celebration but CA has a long, long way to go. Time for some celebratory donations to the legal fund.

Shall issue CCW, the AW ban, and someday NFA items.

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 9:32 AM
This decision is somewhat like having a pile of lumber and a keg of nails, and someone has finally handed us a hammer. It may not be (probably is not) the only tool needed. What might be built is not completely determined, and the actual construction can go well or ill.

Brilliant analogy..... and let the hammering begin!!!

Many of these restrictions in CA that have already been challenged, lost on the fact that CA has no 2A. Now we effectively do. I don't believe that this will make any of the current law automatically unconstitutional, it just opens up the door for new cases based on this new decision.

Is that how you guys see it?

Many of the restrictions were challenged in state courts, which was a no win situation prior to today exactly because of the "no 2A" opinion that has held sway all this time. The few that were challenged in federal court prior to the post Heller re-examination of Nordyke, fell for the same reason. In some cases defeat was at the hands of bad lawyering moving marginal cases.

Nordyke was re-examined in the light of Heller and the 9th Circuit found 2A incorporated. Now in the brighter light of McDonald, the 9th can only either re-affirm Nordyke or waive off the en banc review and allow Nordyke to be published as is.

As noted by others above, and elsewhere. It's a process and each new decision in our favor adds another tool for us to use. McDonald is the bricks and mortar that will complete the foundation. Now we can begin putting up the walls.

tiki
06-28-2010, 9:35 AM
Many of these restrictions in CA that have already been challenged, lost on the fact that CA has no 2A. Now we effectively do. I don't believe that this will make any of the current law automatically unconstitutional, it just opens up the door for new cases based on this new decision.

Is that how you guys see it?

Yes.

Not me ...

I want a couple suppressors ...

Today's decision is cause for some (brief) relieved celebration but CA has a long, long way to go. Time for some celebratory donations to the legal fund.

Shall issue CCW, the AW ban, and someday NFA items.

Well, if you want suppressors, good luck in your move to another state. It won't happen here. And, you better hope that the cases go through before we lose a conservative on the court.

tiki
06-28-2010, 9:39 AM
It is possible that the 10 rd. magazine ban could be hard to defeat on 2A grounds for the reasons you suggest. However; don't confuse "self defense" with "personal protection" while personal protection is pretty narrow, "self defense" can be seen as a pretty broad concept.

Maybe, but, I still think unfriendly courts could shut the door on lots of cases. We can still get some bad decisions from lower courts and have SCOTUS choose to not hear the appeal. Didn't we just have some idiot circuit judge rule that AR-15s aren't in common use?

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 9:48 AM
Well, if you want suppressors, good luck in your move to another state. It won't happen here. And, you better hope that the cases go through before we lose a conservative on the court.

I don't even think it's a matter of conservatives on the court.
The wrong test case at the wrong time could throw a lot of stuff in jeopardy.
Somebody deciding that "the 2nd is the only permit I need!" in light of McDonald - going out and breaking a bunch of laws - could set us back pretty considerably, Conservative judges or not.

It comes down to the strategy and timing of how laws are tested in the courts. They're set up like dominoes right now. Dominoes only work if you knock 'em down in order though...

Joe
06-28-2010, 9:54 AM
Tagged

the_quark
06-28-2010, 9:54 AM
I am shocked that anyone on a panel of justices appointed to uphold the Constitution of this country would rule that one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution would not apply to states. This shows how close we are, one vote, from having cases in the future go against us, essentially making Heller and McDonald have little effect.


I'd been hoping at least one of the liberal justices would've had the intellectual honesty to say, in a concurring opinion, "Look, Heller was wrongly decided - but, given that precedent, clearly if the 2nd Amendment were constructed as Heller says it is - then, the 2nd is applied to the states via the 14th." Thomas again shines as the only man or woman on the court with the courage of his convictions.

tiki
06-28-2010, 9:57 AM
I don't even think it's a matter of conservatives on the court.
The wrong test case at the wrong time could throw a lot of stuff in jeopardy.
Somebody deciding that "the 2nd is the only permit I need!" in light of McDonald - going out and breaking a bunch of laws - could set us back pretty considerably, Conservative judges or not.

It comes down to the strategy and timing of how laws are tested in the courts. They're set up like dominoes right now. Dominoes only work if you knock 'em down in order though...

I agree in part. I still think that regardless of how good of a case you have, the Sotomayors and Kagans in the court will never rule for protecting a gun right. I believe its one of the specific things Obama looks for when appointing a judge.

gravedigger
06-28-2010, 9:58 AM
I fail to see why anyone is shocked at the 5-4 decision. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal is a liberal. Too bad I didn't rush to Vegas to bet on it. Of course, they probably wouldn't have given good odds, since the casinos also know what a liberal is, and know that we have four of them in the SCotUS.

tiki
06-28-2010, 9:59 AM
I'd been hoping at least one of the liberal justices would've had the intellectual honesty to say, in a concurring opinion, "Look, Heller was wrongly decided - but, given that precedent, clearly if the 2nd Amendment were constructed as Heller says it is - then, the 2nd is applied to the states via the 14th." Thomas again shines as the only man or woman on the court with the courage of his convictions.

Ha ha ha.
I keep hoping that one Sunday I'll wake up and check my lottery numbers and they all match, but, I don't race to the paper with my ticket in hand.

Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first. :)

wash
06-28-2010, 10:18 AM
An important thing to note is that we have a Supreme Court prescedent now.

It will be safe for at least a while. Anti-gunners won't be able to even try to attack it for years. When they do, they will have years of declining gun violence along with the same origionalist argument against them.

I am confident that for the rest of my life I'll have the second amendment in all 50 states.

I can't see a lot of big cases getting to the circuit court level and ending with decisions that we don't like. I think the next gun case heard by SCOTUS will be apealed by the anti's (we might have to apeal one or two but after that I expect to see a lot of lower court wins for us).

gunsmith
06-28-2010, 10:40 AM
imo we cant rush out & buy new machine guns...yet.
as far as CA? ccw in 2 1/2 years or sooner, regular AR15's 1 1/2 yrs or sooner
lots of weeping by liberals, it will make me smile.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 10:43 AM
I'd been hoping at least one of the liberal justices would've had the intellectual honesty to say, in a concurring opinion, "Look, Heller was wrongly decided - but, given that precedent, clearly if the 2nd Amendment were constructed as Heller says it is - then, the 2nd is applied to the states via the 14th." Thomas again shines as the only man or woman on the court with the courage of his convictions.

Isn't that exactly how we ended up with 138 years of bad law under slaughterhouse? "Well - I think this thing is wrong, but since it was already decided, i'll just go along with it..." Isn't that how we ended up in this mess to begin with?

Even if they're wrong - at least they're consistent...

hoffmang
06-28-2010, 10:45 AM
In the next few weeks, some previously mildly anti-gun localities will become less anti-gun. Solidly antigun places will remain so until we use the Federal courts to destroy unconstitutional laws. As stated above McDonald + Heller is the anvil. The hammer goes by the name of Gura (with a little help from Kilmer, Davis, CGF, SAF, etc.)

-Gene

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 10:47 AM
lots of weeping by liberals, it will make me smile.

I doubt it.

The majority of people don't care about the 2nd as much as the hardcore pro/anti sides of the debate do. If they did - the NRA would have 150,000,000 members, instead of 3-4 million. The Brady's would have similar numbers, and they'd both be raising money hand over fist.

Sadly - 2nd amendment issues are largely a minority issue. Very few people care about it one way or the other enough to stand up and actually take a side.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 10:51 AM
^ In California, New Jersey, and Maryland.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 11:04 AM
^ In California, New Jersey, and Maryland.

Generally speaking, I think more people in the US are better versed and hold a stronger opinion on issues of Software/Music piracy than they do of the 2nd.


People in places like CA, NJ, NY, MD take it for granted that gun laws will always "protect" them....

People in places like NV, AZ, IN, FL take it for granted that gun laws will always "protect" them....

It's only a very few who dive in and really pay attention to the ugly details on either side of the debate though.

neomedic
06-28-2010, 11:10 AM
How long before the "safe" list is taken down. That pisses me off more than anything (how is one generation is more safe than another....WTF) and having to pay an arm and leg for a PPT.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 11:11 AM
That's largely because until recently there wasn't much to discuss. NY, NJ, et al didn't expect or hope for much because there wasn't reason to so they didn't think about it, and for urbanized populations like NYC, Baltimore, and Boston there wasn't any freedom for them to partake in so of course they wouldn't be interested.

curtisfong
06-28-2010, 11:13 AM
lots of weeping by liberals, it will make me smile.

Until you convince "liberals" that the 2A is a civil rights issue, you will continue to see resistance. You could have had PorI. You could have had Cruikshank stricken down. You could have convinced civil rights leaders that gun control is racist.

But you failed.

You are back to square one, and the 2A is again a partisan issue.

Trust me, that is not a win for you.

Eckolaker
06-28-2010, 11:13 AM
This is from Brady's Website.

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

Meplat
06-28-2010, 11:13 AM
Someone must have been following these cases and calendars, and have some sort of idea if we are looking a weeks, months, or years before the first "on hold for SCOTUS" case is decided. Ya, I know, 2 weeks. :rolleyes:

Some lawsuits have been on hold for this result. Those will now go forward, consistent with the court calendars where those suits have been filed.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 11:20 AM
This is from Brady's Website.

"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."




And this is the thing that we have to be careful of. The Brady's do have a plan for how to deal with this. Part of the plan is that not only did we get protections under the 2nd, but they did as well. Until today there was a question as to whether ANY of their laws were legal.

Now we know that some of their laws may be legal.

The question is - which ones?
Not only did our rights become legitimatized, but their attempts to restrict our rights became legitimatized as well. The fight will be to define "reasonable".

halo6941
06-28-2010, 11:27 AM
I want my CCW!

I dont think your the only one

grammaton76
06-28-2010, 11:58 AM
Yes.

Well, if you want suppressors, good luck in your move to another state. It won't happen here. And, you better hope that the cases go through before we lose a conservative on the court.

Actually, the key issue is whether or not they are "common". SBR's are probably a little bit more common than suppressors, but I could be wrong.

This is why it's actually important for US whenever someone in TX, AZ, etc, buys themselves an SBR or suppressor. The more people own it, the more common it is. The more common it is, the closer it edges to enjoying protection.

I would find it interesting to know how many SBR's and suppressors are on the NFA registry at present, and what the delta to that number has been over the last few years.

Meplat
06-28-2010, 12:00 PM
You are 100% correct. However, I was taught in grammar school (by a pacifist teacher no less) that the 2nd meant what it said and was the birthright of all. Then as a teenager I found myself fighting tooth and nail to try to hold on to it. The GCA-68 passed the year I turned old enough to vote. I have had a dog in this individual right fight for 50 years! As Biden would say; “This is a big ****ing deal!” I’m going to savor it for a little bit! :D


And this is the thing that we have to be careful of. The Brady's do have a plan for how to deal with this. Part of the plan is that not only did we get protections under the 2nd, but they did as well. Until today there was a question as to whether ANY of their laws were legal.

Now we know that some of their laws may be legal.

The question is - which ones?
Not only did our rights become legitimatized, but their attempts to restrict our rights became legitimatized as well. The fight will be to define "reasonable".

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 12:03 PM
You are 100% correct. However, I was taught in grammar school (by a pacifist teacher no less) that the 2nd meant what it said and was the birthright of all. Then as a teenager I found myself fighting tooth and nail to try to hold on to it. The GCA-68 passed the year I turned old enough to vote. I have had a dog in this individual right fight for 50 years! As Biden would say; “This is a big ****ing deal!” I’m going to savor it for a little bit! :D

I look at it like a baseball game.

You win, you pat each other on the back, celebrate for a minute, and move on. By the time you're out of the shower and dressed, you start reviewing tape and getting ready for the next game.
By the time you get to sleep that night, you're already thinking about fighting the next fight. There's no time for victory speeches and celebrations...

CaliforniaLiberal
06-28-2010, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian
Some lawsuits have been on hold for this result. Those will now go forward, consistent with the court calendars where those suits have been filed.


Someone must have been following these cases and calendars, and have some sort of idea if we are looking a weeks, months, or years before the first "on hold for SCOTUS" case is decided. Ya, I know, 2 weeks. :rolleyes:


I forecast that we will have some happy news from the courts by the time the leaves fall this year.

vantec08
06-28-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm not too happy about today's decision. I'm happy about Incorporation, but the rest troubles me. Why?

I am shocked that anyone on a panel of justices appointed to uphold the Constitution of this country would rule that one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution would not apply to states. This shows how close we are, one vote, from having cases in the future go against us, essentially making Heller and McDonald have little effect.

I keep hearing the emphasis on personal protection when people discuss Heller. (I won't go into the "in the home" part). So, when you throw "personal protection" in with "in common use" language, I can easily see how a liberal leaning court would, in the future, rule that "assault weapons" and "large capacity feeding devices" are not in common use for self defense. Yeah, we can all say that our AR-15s are for home protection, but I can see how a court can rule that way in the context of personal protection. I hope i'm wrong, but when I see people like Sotomayor and Kagan on the court, anything is possible.

I was elated with Heller, even taking the day off to knock back some champagne and call friends that don't follow the court stuff, but, I just don't feel it this morning. I hope i'm wrong, I really do.



dam right . .... .we are on the Edge .. . . give it about 4 years and I might. Maybe.

stitchnicklas
06-28-2010, 12:36 PM
so are we talking a year or 2 to affect california laws??

Paladin
06-28-2010, 1:10 PM
In the next few weeks, some previously mildly anti-gun localities will become less anti-gun. Solidly antigun places will remain so until we use the Federal courts to destroy unconstitutional laws. If you're talking about CA counties in respect to issuing CCWs, please have CGN/CGF post a map/sticky/equivalent somewhere so that we can easily refer people there to quickly find out if they have a chance for a CA CCW as counties loosen up issuance.

As stated above McDonald + Heller is the anvil. The hammer goes by the name of Gura (with a little help from Kilmer, Davis, CGF, SAF, etc.)The way I describe it is that Heller got us into the ring and McDonald enables us to drag states and local governments into the ring. NOW the fights begin! :chris:

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 1:15 PM
Have no fear - working on an interactive map, carry permit info database and wiki.

-BC

If you're talking about CA counties in respect to issuing CCWs, please have CGN/CGF post a map/sticky/equivalent somewhere so that we can easily refer people there to quickly find out if they have a chance for a CA CCW as counties loosen up issuance.

The way I describe it is that Heller got us into the ring and McDonald enables us to drag states and local governments into the ring. NOW the fights begin! :chris:

wash
06-28-2010, 1:34 PM
I look at it like a baseball game.

You win, you pat each other on the back, celebrate for a minute, and move on. By the time you're out of the shower and dressed, you start reviewing tape and getting ready for the next game.
By the time you get to sleep that night, you're already thinking about fighting the next fight. There's no time for victory speeches and celebrations...
From what I have seen post Nordyke, post Nordyke en banc and post McDonald vs. Chicago oral arguments, the celebration is a fun BS session discussing legal strategies and next steps. It also generates some donations for CGF.

With the pace of the legal system, there is enough time to celebrate a little. I think it's even a little valuable for the lawyers, getting a fresh take on things or maybe that stupid question that opens a new can of worms that we can use later.

If it were entirely worthless to celebrate, the right people probably wouldn't do it.

Tonight we can celebrate and guess what color Ferrari Alan is going to buy and which law schools are going to offer him a job.

shooting4life
06-28-2010, 1:37 PM
I cannot wait to hear about the cases that are waiting to be filed and I think best case is we might see some changes in California by the end of the year but most likely sometime in the later part next year. IMHO

2009_gunner
06-28-2010, 1:44 PM
Has DC paid Alan Gura yet? I hope Chicago puts up a little fight before paying. It's fun to see the tyrants ***** and moan.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 1:46 PM
From what I have seen post Nordyke, post Nordyke en banc and post McDonald vs. Chicago oral arguments, the celebration is a fun BS session discussing legal strategies and next steps. It also generates some donations for CGF.

With the pace of the legal system, there is enough time to celebrate a little. I think it's even a little valuable for the lawyers, getting a fresh take on things or maybe that stupid question that opens a new can of worms that we can use later.

If it were entirely worthless to celebrate, the right people probably wouldn't do it.

Tonight we can celebrate and guess what color Ferrari Alan is going to buy and which law schools are going to offer him a job.

I'm not saying it's worthless to celebrate - just that you keep your eye on the prize. 1 battle does not win the war.

wash
06-28-2010, 2:00 PM
Yeah, but we're in France now.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 2:01 PM
I'm not saying it's worthless to celebrate - just that you keep your eye on the prize. 1 battle does not win the war.

No, but 2 sure help.

It's important to celebrate our successes when we have them (and, of course, get back to work). I can guarantee you that there's really no greater risks to advancement of our rights than gun owners making bad law (impatience, refusal to cooperate, etc.) and burnout.

hill billy
06-28-2010, 2:21 PM
No, but 2 sure help.

It's important to celebrate our successes when we have them (and, of course, get back to work). Indeed, success improves morale and builds support. No victory should be uncelebrated. In this we might take a lesson from the brady bunch. They celebrate every victory, even when it's a loss. :D

RRangel
06-28-2010, 2:50 PM
I think a lot of people assumed that heller would "change everything". It didn't.
Now people are skeptical about whether or not McDonald will "change everything". It won't.

What these cases do is open the door. Some very smart people still have to make the right arguments at the right time to get us through that door.

It's been said before, but these cases are part of a process. They're not a silver bullet.

It does change everything as it relates to California. Though it matters less in other states with their own Second Amendment. California didn't have a RKBA previous to incorporation. That was not a valid argument in a court but now the direct opposite will be true. You'll be able to argue that you have a RKBA in a court. This is huge.

How many of our state laws were based on the flawed logic of no RKBA? Today those laws are in danger of being unconstitutional on their face. We had incorporation for a few days before the Nordyke decision went en banc so of course that didn't make a difference. Now it's on.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 2:57 PM
It does change everything as it relates to California. Though it matters less in other states with their own Second Amendment. California didn't have a RKBA previous to incorporation. That was not a valid argument in a court but now the direct opposite will be true. You'll be able to argue that you have a RKBA in a court. This is huge.

How many of our state laws were based on the flawed logic of no RKBA? Today those laws are in danger of being unconstitutional on their face. We had incorporation for a few days before the Nordyke decision went en banc so of course that didn't make a difference. Now it's on.

The point is - McDonald on it's own doesn't change anything at a practical day-to-day level. You cannot suddenly go out and buy fully featured ARs or AKs. LOC is not suddenly legal. Concealed Carry is not suddenly legal. Your local CLEO is not all of the sudden going to "shall issue" your CCW application.

Those are the things that people are looking for. How does McDonald directly affect those practical issues directly in California. It doesn't.

Some people are voicing their frustration in that regard.

Untamed1972
06-28-2010, 3:14 PM
In the next few weeks, some previously mildly anti-gun localities will become less anti-gun. Solidly antigun places will remain so until we use the Federal courts to destroy unconstitutional laws. As stated above McDonald + Heller is the anvil. The hammer goes by the name of Gura (with a little help from Kilmer, Davis, CGF, SAF, etc.)

-Gene


Gura the Hammer! I like it!!! GRRRRrrrrrr :thumbsup:


From hence forth he should always be introduced as Alan "The Hammer" Gura!


In this corner we have Alan "The Hammer" Gura weighing in with an impressive list of SCOTUS wins, and in that corner we have a bunch of winey gun-hating libs that have never won S**T and will be be adding to their impressive list of losses again tonight! This is gonna be a great fight tonight folks, so get your :popcorn: now so you dont miss one second of tonight's total azzwhoopin'!

the_quark
06-28-2010, 3:18 PM
Ha ha ha.
I keep hoping that one Sunday I'll wake up and check my lottery numbers and they all match, but, I don't race to the paper with my ticket in hand.

Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first. :)

Yeah, to be clear, I wouldn't have made a bet on it, but I have eternal optimism for intellectual honesty, despite all evidence to the contrary...

the_quark
06-28-2010, 3:21 PM
Has DC paid Alan Gura yet? I hope Chicago puts up a little fight before paying. It's fun to see the tyrants ***** and moan.

I hope Chicago is writing him a check right now. Every minute Alan spends drafting motions to get paid is a minute he's not drafting motions to get us more of our rights back.

wash
06-28-2010, 3:27 PM
As far as I know, D.C. has not paid yet.

They said that he was charging too much even though D.C. was very happy to accept more than a million in pro-bono help from a few anti-gun law firms at much higher rates.

I told Alan that he's a bargain and he needs to raise his rates. He's a two-time SCOTUS winner!

socalblue
06-28-2010, 3:38 PM
It does change everything as it relates to California. Though it matters less in other states with their own Second Amendment. California didn't have a RKBA previous to incorporation. That was not a valid argument in a court but now the direct opposite will be true. You'll be able to argue that you have a RKBA in a court. This is huge.

How many of our state laws were based on the flawed logic of no RKBA? Today those laws are in danger of being unconstitutional on their face. We had incorporation for a few days before the Nordyke decision went en banc so of course that didn't make a difference. Now it's on.

EXACTLY on target. Unlike the many (Or most?) states, CA does not have any RKBA protection in the State Constitution. Until today the CA Legislature was free to make virtually any anti-RKBA laws they wished.

Of course todays ruling likely won't influence that group of fools we call the CA Legislature. It's going to take a little more time before they figure out the new reality.

command_liner
06-28-2010, 3:51 PM
I hope Chicago is writing him a check right now. Every minute Alan spends drafting motions to get paid is a minute he's not drafting motions to get us more of our rights back.

At one of the events, I got to ask Alan about the no-pay problem. He
responded with a detailed, well-reasoned plan. If it happens, it will
be thrilling, shocking, and totally appropriate. No, I cannot describe
the details here and now.

There is a chance, a good one, that the plan will be put in motion
_tomorrow_. Stay tuned and be prepared to laugh until you pee your
pants.

pgg
06-28-2010, 4:05 PM
Well, if you want suppressors, good luck in your move to another state. It won't happen here. And, you better hope that the cases go through before we lose a conservative on the court.

I'll be here until at least May 19, 2014 when I will likely get out of the military. If that day comes and the 2A landscape isn't dramatically different here, I will leave.

Actually I'll probably leave anyway for tax reasons. If I'm still staring down the barrel of 10% state taxes and stupid gun laws, I'm gone. I was born in CA, lived here 23 years, and just came back in 2009. I'd like to stay but there's only so much I can put up with.

In the meantime I'll make another donation to the Calguns lawyers, enjoy the MAWP that makes me slightly more equal than my fellow peasants in the eyes of our Sacramento lords, and hope for the best.

ldivinag
06-28-2010, 4:37 PM
so... where does Class III goodies fall into this?



i just want a supressed MP-40...


lol...

Centurion_D
06-28-2010, 5:01 PM
Is there any chance I could possibly hand down my RAW's to my son? Is there a chance that the CA AW ban my fall? Please let my son inherit my AW's!!!!! :clap::patriot:

Geo
06-28-2010, 5:14 PM
You really have no clue what McDonald was about, do you?

Mstrty
06-28-2010, 5:16 PM
Is there any chance I could possibly hand down my RAW's to my son? Is there a chance that the CA AW ban my fall? Please let my son inherit my AW's!!!!! :clap::patriot:

I would hope that California you will let your son inherit your RAW's except by then they will be called long guns not AW's. AW's is what California will call fully automatic firearms and all semi's will be long guns or handguns. I hope:)

Colt-45
06-28-2010, 5:17 PM
Is there any chance I could possibly hand down my RAW's to my son? Is there a chance that the CA AW ban my fall? Please let my son inherit my AW's!!!!! :clap::patriot:

Might take a few more court cases.

bodger
06-28-2010, 5:19 PM
A lot more court cases.

Dangerpin
06-28-2010, 5:21 PM
There is reason to have optimism for that happening in the future. I don't think that Centurion thought it was going to be immediate, I'm sure he just wondered if it might be in the cards.

If there was ever any chance, it surely had to wait until after today.

If you are old or in ill health you still might seriously consider finishing out your time here in a state that will allow you to pass on your legacy properly. If you are middle-aged, as I am, I share a hope to be able to pass my guns to my children without interference of an overreaching state.

Jpach
06-28-2010, 5:25 PM
The AW ban will fall. When? I dont know but I dont see it standing after it is challenged in court. That will still take time though.

Ding126
06-28-2010, 5:29 PM
I have often wondered why I can not leave my registered weapons to my son. Is there another Ca law which does not allow you to leave property to a family member??

Farquaad
06-28-2010, 5:32 PM
Unfortunately this morning the state legislature did not go down their law books with a sharpie and line out all the gun laws, and don't expect that any time soon either. Yes there is hope, but its a ways off, and things in CA will be the same tomorrow and next month as they were yesterday.

grammaton76
06-28-2010, 5:32 PM
so... where does Class III goodies fall into this?


i just want a supressed MP-40...


lol...

Bleh. My MP5 clone simply wants to become a suppressed MP5K.

Centurion_D
06-28-2010, 5:45 PM
You really have no clue what McDonald was about, do you?

Do you? :rolleyes: I was speaking only in terms that hopefully that day will come to pass. It may take a while but maybe this decision could impact gun grabbers future plans for more gun control..especially when talking about AW's.

CHS
06-28-2010, 6:04 PM
I have often wondered why I can not leave my registered weapons to my son. Is there another Ca law which does not allow you to leave property to a family member??

Nope. No other law. The same law that made you register your AW's is the law that restricts anyone from inheriting your guns.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 6:07 PM
Unfortunately this morning the state legislature did not go down their law books with a sharpie and line out all the gun laws, and don't expect that any time soon either. They're too busy sniffing the fumes of the Sharpies to do that. I'm pretty sure that is what they do every morning.

ojisan
06-28-2010, 6:11 PM
I have often wondered why I can not leave my registered weapons to my son.

Because, if everyone followed the law, as us old farts die off, our evil weapons get destroyed or sold out of state or given to the police or whatever upon our passing.
Within two generations all the evil weapons will be gone from the state.
That's why.
They won't take them from you now, but they will take them from you later.
(To take then from you later they need to be registered, but we won't discuss registering guns (or not) right now).

Now, let's say you have something like an AR-15 RAW.
Most likely the only thing that really makes it a CA-RAW is either the name on the receiver lower or the name on the receiver lower.
Yes, I typed that twice because that is how important it is.
Replace your "evil" listed-name lower with a nice Off-List one.
Configure the rifle featureless so you can still drop your over 10 round mags or go with a BB for the next few months and build it "evil".
You can have this project done within two weeks, less than $200, and then hand it down to your kids with no problems.
This can be done with many guns, including HKs, AKs and many more.
Throw the evil stripped lower into the safe and if your kids have to turn it in, so what?
The CA AWB will die in 1-2 years is my guess, so if you can hang on that long, don't worry about it.
Then take that "evil" lower back out of the safe and start a new build!
:)

Thank you CG for the OLLs and stuff.
My kids will thank you, too.
:punk:

Ding126
06-28-2010, 6:13 PM
Nope. No other law. The same law that made you register your AW's is the law that restricts anyone from inheriting your guns.

It seems so UnAmerican....

The USA is 49 states & Ca... An imaginary island which sets standards for the other 49 and makes the majority of the country/population hate Ca in general.

ArmedCitizen
06-28-2010, 6:24 PM
Here's something:

Asked by a reporter what type of handgun he would buy, he (McDonald) did not miss a beat. "I don't have no preference right now. I can use all of them," he said.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/man-who-challenged-gun-ban-i-am-so-happy-i-am-so-happy.html

Some organization should donate this man a gun asap. He deserves it!

AC

Meplat
06-28-2010, 6:54 PM
He already has one. He keeps it outside the city.;)

Here's something:

Asked by a reporter what type of handgun he would buy, he (McDonald) did not miss a beat. "I don't have no preference right now. I can use all of them," he said.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/man-who-challenged-gun-ban-i-am-so-happy-i-am-so-happy.html

Some organization should donate this man a gun asap. He deserves it!

AC

HondaMasterTech
06-28-2010, 7:06 PM
I was listening to FOX radio. A representative from the Brady Campaign to Encourage Criminal Activity was commenting on Today's court ruling.

Among the things he said that made me shake my head or laugh, one really stood out. Not exact quote; He stated the result of Heller was that the Second Amendment only protects your right to a gun at home.

Cokebottle
06-28-2010, 7:14 PM
Keep in mind that incorporation of other Constitutional amendments were by narrow rulings, too.
And current law holds these rights by a thread, depending on the state..... "Stop and Identify", "Terry Stop/Search", etc....
4A/5A are not as absolute in every state as they are in California... and they aren't as absolute in California as the framers intended.

JimWest
06-28-2010, 7:27 PM
... Concealed Carry is not suddenly legal. Your local CLEO is not all of the sudden going to "shall issue" your CCW application...Those are the things that people are looking for...

But some day it shall come to be, the decision being an instrument of its effect. And then a horrifying thought. Like bellbottoms, long hair, Harleys and tattoos, when everybody has one I won't want the bloody CCW! :eek:

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 7:34 PM
I was listening to FOX radio. A representative from the Brady Campaign to Encourage Criminal Activity was commenting on Today's court ruling.

Among the things he said that made me shake my head or laugh, one really stood out. Not exact quote; He stated the result of Heller was that the Second Amendment only protects your right to a gun at home.

Technically, that is the only thing that Heller covered. That was the issue at hand.
The Heller decision (if i recall) specifically stated that they were not going to take an exhaustive review of every possible scenario, and they were going to look strictly at the issue in the complaint.
That complaint was the ability for some one to own a gun, in their home.

Any other issue has to be addressed as needed, in the future, according to Heller.

So yes, that representative was correct, just didn't tell the whole story. He forgot to mention that's the only thing that's been questioned thus far, and that SCOTUS left the door WIDE OPEN for expanding that right beyond the home...

Veggie
06-28-2010, 7:39 PM
http://www.photoshoppix.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10008/pepto-bismol2.jpg

Oh wait. Wrong Mcdonald.

HondaMasterTech
06-28-2010, 7:43 PM
Technically, that is the only thing that Heller covered. That was the issue at hand.
The Heller decision (if i recall) specifically stated that they were not going to take an exhaustive review of every possible scenario, and they were going to look strictly at the issue in the complaint.
That complaint was the ability for some one to own a gun, in their home.

Any other issue has to be addressed as needed, in the future, according to Heller.

So yes, that representative was correct, just didn't tell the whole story. He forgot to mention that's the only thing that's been questioned thus far, and that SCOTUS left the door WIDE OPEN for expanding that right beyond the home...

He stated the ruling meant that the Second Amendment ONLY protected your right to own a gun at home. He did not state that the RULING protected your right to own a gun at home...

Librarian
06-28-2010, 7:51 PM
In the next few weeks, some previously mildly anti-gun localities will become less anti-gun. Solidly antigun places will remain so until we use the Federal courts to destroy unconstitutional laws. As stated above McDonald + Heller is the anvil. The hammer goes by the name of Gura (with a little help from Kilmer, Davis, CGF, SAF, etc.)

-Gene

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html) quotes Gura That process could begin as soon as Tuesday, said Alan Gura, the Virginia attorney who won the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, and also argued for would-be Chicago gun owners in this year's case. "Tomorrow you'll see a new case," said Mr. Gura, who already has several lawsuits pending against gun laws in California.

Laws in New York, North Carolina and other areas are likely to be challenged, gun-rights groups said.

With the right to protect one's home with firearms now recognized, Mr. Gura said a further step would be extending the right "to carry them in public for self defense." Step-wise refinement ...

damon1272
06-28-2010, 9:20 PM
I can see the AW laws being overturned as they outlaw a whole class of weapon just as Chicago outlawed a whole class of weapons with hand guns. What I think will be harder is over turning the magazine law. I would expect the .50 bmg law could possibly fall also. What I do see happening on the left is pushing of ammo laws to restrict the gun owners though guns and ammo go hand in hand.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 9:22 PM
Dont die in the next 18 months.

Centurion_D
06-28-2010, 9:51 PM
Dont die in the next 18 months.

Ummm...yea. I'll try not too. :D

mistuhchia
06-28-2010, 10:20 PM
What does this change for us?

rabagley
06-28-2010, 10:53 PM
I can see the AW laws being overturned as they outlaw a whole class of weapon just as Chicago outlawed a whole class of weapons with hand guns. What I think will be harder is over turning the magazine law. I would expect the .50 bmg law could possibly fall also. What I do see happening on the left is pushing of ammo laws to restrict the gun owners though guns and ammo go hand in hand.

The magazine ban is being attacked as a violation of equal treatment under the law, similar to how the may-issue CCW rules are being attacked. Magazine size limits may fall before the AW ban does.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 11:17 PM
I can see the AW laws being overturned as they outlaw a whole class of weapon just as Chicago outlawed a whole class of weapons with hand guns. What I think will be harder is over turning the magazine law. I would expect the .50 bmg law could possibly fall also. What I do see happening on the left is pushing of ammo laws to restrict the gun owners though guns and ammo go hand in hand.

I think what you're going to see is an argument that CA AWB is about specific features that are "more dangerous" and thus fair game for legislation, and not about an 'entire class'. You may see a drop of named lowers - but they'll still try to go for some sort of functional testing component.

Probably even be some sneakiness about making it related to the importation for commercial sale - ala the Handgun Roster. In fact, expect to see this very argument tested in the handgun roster debate.

When the handgun roster is challenged - the argument will be that it doesn't ban an entire class of weapons the way DC or Chicago tried to do - but rather they ban specific handguns for not meeting their functional safety requirements, and that comparable guns that do meet those requirements are available. SCOTUS spoke of very general classes and types in Heller - and this would be one way to try and get around that.

CA will try to say that their testing is rooted in science and based on repeatable standard testing - thus it is not arbitrary (You might even see parallels drawn to cars). DC's attempted lifting of the CA roster isn't going to work - since DC is basically just saying "ditto", lifting the parts of the law they like, and not really doing any work to verify or validate CA's work, or apply any original thought to it. That's kind of arbitrary. Literally "eh - this sounds good, let's use this law here...."

Whether or not it works - we'll have to wait and see. If it does - we're in trouble. If they can find a variation that sticks for rostering, they'll apply the same theory to black rifles, and it would likely hold.

Regardless - it's likely to be a ginormous mess to get sorted out, and while I see it generally going in our favor - I fear they may be able to score a few points to make life difficult on us. Either way I suspect it will take a very long time before AW issues really see the light of day.

7.62x54R
06-28-2010, 11:24 PM
The USA is 49 states & Ca... An imaginary island which sets standards for the other 49 and makes the majority of the country/population hate Ca in general.

Good one

Librarian
06-28-2010, 11:55 PM
A pretty decent article is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100628/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2876_1).
What are the specific terms of the ruling?
The court essentially said state and local laws banning handguns (which preclude citizens from owning handguns for self-defense in the home) are too strict. The decision flows directly from the court's ruling in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s blanket ban on handguns. While that case already addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment by affirming the right of citizens to own handguns, it applied only on a federal level. (D.C. is under federal jurisdiction.) This case — by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — extends the same interpretation of the Second Amendment to state and local levels. Taken together, these rulings say that the Constitution bars various levels of government from banning handgun ownership.

Will this ruling affect gun laws where I live?
For now, this Supreme Court ruling is only likely to affect gun laws in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. — there is no immediate effect on any other laws. So if you live in another city that restricts gun possession in some way, that law remains in effect for the moment. Both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence say no other communities currently ban handgun possession in the home, so no other laws are clearly rendered unconstitutional. However, this Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment can be used to challenge other gun laws in cities and states. So this case may result in incremental change across the country as gun laws are challenged one by one.

If I live in a city where handgun ownership is restricted, can I buy a handgun now?
No, you will still be subject to the restrictions that were already in place. So if you had to get a license to buy a handgun, you will still need to go through that process. Even in Chicago and Oak Park, the cities where the handgun bans were challenged, the restrictions remain in place for now. The high court interpreted the Constitution but left the actual decision regarding the cities' laws to a lower court. It's likely under the Supreme Court's ruling that the lower court will find the laws unconstitutional, and at that time the cities will probably be able to rewrite their laws to comply with the ruling while still enacting some gun restrictions.

Does this mean I can purchase any kind of gun I want?
No. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that ownership of many kinds of guns, such as assault weapons, can be banned.

Does this mean felons can purchase guns?
No. Just as the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on the kinds of guns people can own, it has permitted some restrictions on who can own them. The Brady Center notes that the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly bars felons from buying guns.

How does the ruling affect carrying weapons in public?
It doesn't. This ruling affects only handgun ownership, not where you can take that gun. So laws that prohibit guns in public still stand.

Could other pending cases further expand what's allowed under the Second Amendment?
None are before the Supreme Court right now, but UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Yahoo! News that the McDonald case "will doubtless trigger a new round of litigation" — for example, challenges to local restrictions on gun possession by people younger than 21 or by noncitizens. And D.C. isn’t out of the legal woods: A plaintiff from the Heller case is trying to gain the right to carry weapons in public, while other gun-rights advocates are challenging the new D.C. law that was written to comply with Heller.

— Laura E. Davis is an editor for Yahoo! News.

grammaton76
06-29-2010, 1:12 AM
CA will try to say that their testing is rooted in science and based on repeatable standard testing - thus it is not arbitrary (You might even see parallels drawn to cars). DC's attempted lifting of the CA roster isn't going to work - since DC is basically just saying "ditto", lifting the parts of the law they like, and not really doing any work to verify or validate CA's work, or apply any original thought to it. That's kind of arbitrary. Literally "eh - this sounds good, let's use this law here...."

If they wanted to save the roster, they probably could by doing two things:

1. Weapons no longer expire off the list, and all previously listed guns are reinstated.
2. LCI and mag disconnect safety are no longer factors.

At that point, you'd see a lot more weapons being listed, and the "we don't have enough variety" argument is significantly deflated.

gunsmith
06-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Until you convince "liberals" that the 2A is a civil rights issue, you will continue to see resistance. You could have had PorI. You could have had Cruikshank stricken down. You could have convinced civil rights leaders that gun control is racist.

But you failed.

You are back to square one, and the 2A is again a partisan issue.

Trust me, that is not a win for you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA weep liberals weep and wail, gnash your teeth pull out your hair and stomp your feet. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=316472

Today, in a press conference, ...It’s a good story: guns are so bad they make big men weep.

Mofo-Kang
06-29-2010, 12:30 PM
imo we cant rush out & buy new machine guns...yet.
as far as CA? ccw in 2 1/2 years or sooner, regular AR15's 1 1/2 yrs or sooner
lots of weeping by liberals, it will make me smile.

I'm a liberal, and I won't be doing any weeping. I'll be the guy ahead of you in line buying an AR-15.

Wherryj
06-29-2010, 12:33 PM
So why can't Califorina be smart like these cities and just repell the unconstutional laws? Yea, I know...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Illinois

CA politicians would rather repeal the Constitution.

fiddletown
06-29-2010, 12:43 PM
Just over two years ago, the debate was still open about whether the Second Amendment describes an individual or a collective right. The Supreme Court decision in Heller settled that and confirmed that the Second Amendment describes an individual right.

Until shortly after 10:00 am, EDT, yesterday morning, whether the Second Amendment applied to the States was still an open question. In 1833 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court expressly found that neither the First Amendment right of assembly nor the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. But beginning in the latter part of the 19th Century, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights in a piecemeal fashion to the States through the 14th Amendment under a legal doctrine known as incorporation. So until yesterday morning, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States.

Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge at least the most draconian state restrictions on the RKBA.

It has long been settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, we have some reason to hope that the highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply. Strict scrutiny has thus far been the standard applied to any regulation of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, government will at least be able to make its pitch that the regulation challenged satisfies the test. Some will, and some will not. I suspect that now the strategy will be to go after the ones most likely to fall, so as to continue to build a body of pro-RKBA precedent.

My best guess as to how litigation of some of the current regulation of the RKBA will shake out over the next few years:

* Complete bans on carrying guns will fall.
* Laws requiring a permit to purchase, own or carry, if issued on a "may issue" basis or subject to onerous conditions or restrictions, will fall.
* Laws requiring a permit to carry a gun in public will survive, if permits are "shall issue." Laws generally requiring some form of background check and/or some level of training or demonstration of proficiency and knowledge of the rules will survive.
* The "prohibited person" provision of the GCA of 1968 will survive.
* The NFA will survive. The Hughes Amendment closing the full auto registry will also probably survive.
* "Safe gun" lists like those in California and Massachusetts, high capacity magazine bans and an AWB based on cosmetic characteristics may well fall, but it's not a sure thing.


In short, adults who are not "prohibited persons" under 18 USC 922(g) will probably be able to buy and own most types of guns, other than fully automatic guns, with minimal folderol. If they want to carry those guns in public, loaded for personal defense, there will be a way for them to do so; but the State will be able to require that as a condition of carrying they (1) get a permit, available on a "shall issue" basis; and (2) demonstrate some reasonable level of proficiency, the ability to safely handle a gun, and some at least basic knowledge of the law relating to the use of force in self defense.

rabagley
06-29-2010, 12:49 PM
In short, adults who are not "prohibited persons" under 18 USC 922(g) will probably be able to buy and own most types of guns, other than fully automatic guns, with minimal folderol. If they want to carry those guns in public, loaded for personal defense, there will be a way for them to do so; but the State will be able to require that as a condition of carrying they (1) get a permit, available on a "shall issue" basis; and (2) demonstrate some reasonable level of proficiency, the ability to safely handle a gun, and some at least basic knowledge of the law relating to the use of force in self defense.

So the country will be basically like Texas, then? I can absolutely live with that.

Mofo-Kang
06-29-2010, 12:52 PM
I would expect the .50 bmg law could possibly fall also.

That law just made my jaw drop when I found out about it having passed. How many crimes were committed with .50 BMG rifles? Exactly how many liquor stores have been held up by guys with 5-foot long, bolt-action, $5000 guns?

Wherryj
06-29-2010, 12:54 PM
I fail to see why anyone is shocked at the 5-4 decision. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal is a liberal. Too bad I didn't rush to Vegas to bet on it. Of course, they probably wouldn't have given good odds, since the casinos also know what a liberal is, and know that we have four of them in the SCotUS.

Unfortunately you are right about this one. The issue with our Supreme Court is that it has given way to personal opinion. The judges don't seem to be as concerned with what the Constitution says as with what they personally want it to say.

I like Justice Scalia's take on things.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? "

Wherryj
06-29-2010, 12:55 PM
That law just made my jaw drop when I found out about it having passed. How many crimes were committed with .50 BMG rifles? Exactly how many liquor stores have been held up by guys with 5-foot long, bolt-action, $5000 guns?

(Just to throw in the Brady spin)

Wow, that law passed JUST in time. See how many people avoided being blown to bits in liquor store robberies?

Untamed1972
06-29-2010, 1:10 PM
I think what you're going to see is an argument that CA AWB is about specific features that are "more dangerous" and thus fair game for legislation, and not about an 'entire class'. You may see a drop of named lowers - but they'll still try to go for some sort of functional testing component.

Probably even be some sneakiness about making it related to the importation for commercial sale - ala the Handgun Roster. In fact, expect to see this very argument tested in the handgun roster debate.

When the handgun roster is challenged - the argument will be that it doesn't ban an entire class of weapons the way DC or Chicago tried to do - but rather they ban specific handguns for not meeting their functional safety requirements, and that comparable guns that do meet those requirements are available. SCOTUS spoke of very general classes and types in Heller - and this would be one way to try and get around that.

CA will try to say that their testing is rooted in science and based on repeatable standard testing - thus it is not arbitrary (You might even see parallels drawn to cars). DC's attempted lifting of the CA roster isn't going to work - since DC is basically just saying "ditto", lifting the parts of the law they like, and not really doing any work to verify or validate CA's work, or apply any original thought to it. That's kind of arbitrary. Literally "eh - this sounds good, let's use this law here...."

Whether or not it works - we'll have to wait and see. If it does - we're in trouble. If they can find a variation that sticks for rostering, they'll apply the same theory to black rifles, and it would likely hold.

Regardless - it's likely to be a ginormous mess to get sorted out, and while I see it generally going in our favor - I fear they may be able to score a few points to make life difficult on us. Either way I suspect it will take a very long time before AW issues really see the light of day.

As I stated in another thread though I think CA may host "shot themselves in the foot" so to speak on some of those arguements with all of the LEO exemptions they write into every law, especially those exemptions allow LEOs to purchase items like Hi-cap mags an off roster guns for person, off-duty use. I think their arguments will fall apart in trying to explain why a gun that is a safe for a LEO to use off duty for person use, but not for a private citizen under the same curcumstances.

All their theories based in science go out to the window as soon as you start making exceptions for certain classes of people. Either they are safe or they're not. Not to mention the requirement to have an HSC or PC832 firearms certificate could be used to say that safety training is required by the state to purchase a handgun, therefore anyone legally purchasing one has been deemed trained by the state to safely handle a handgun, so why the need for extra limitations beyond that for certain classes of citizens?

Untamed1972
06-29-2010, 1:24 PM
"* The NFA will survive. The Hughes Amendment closing the full auto registry will also probably survive.


It would be interesting to see the arguement for keep it closed though. If there are still legal FAs out there, and the existing ones on the registry can still be sold and transfered, then how can you claim they are dangerous and should be kept from the public? I can see (although not agree) with an argument asking for registry as a means to keep tabs on them for public safety. But to say "It's ok for the ones already out there to stay, but it's unsafe to let anymore out."

Cokebottle
06-29-2010, 8:46 PM
When the handgun roster is challenged - the argument will be that it doesn't ban an entire class of weapons the way DC or Chicago tried to do - but rather they ban specific handguns for not meeting their functional safety requirements, and that comparable guns that do meet those requirements are available.
That would be fine and dandy, except for several things:
Identical guns that differ only in cosmetics, such as the XD45 black vs the XD45 Bi-Tone, are not both on the roster.
NO 1911 meets the current standards.

If it were truly about safety, when new standards are implemented, previously rostered guns would be subject to testing under the new standards or removal from the roster, much like EPA/CARB standards.
A dealership may sell an automatic version of "a car", but not a manual version of the same car... when both versions were available the previous year. Like the roster, used cars may still be sold, but all current production must meet current standards or it cannot be sold in CA.

Also, if it were about safety, non-rostered guns would not be available via roster-exempt means... either to exempt persons, or through exempt transactions such as PPT or Intrafamilial, and like listed lowers, they would be illegal to import by new residents.

Veggie
06-29-2010, 8:48 PM
Dont die in the next 18 months.

Haven't you heard what the anti's are saying? SCOTUS is nuts were are done for. 18 months is a lot to ask for.

Cokebottle
06-29-2010, 8:49 PM
So the country will be basically like Texas, then? I can absolutely live with that.
I'd prefer to compare to Utah....


Texas has no open-carry provisions, either loaded or unloaded. Concealment must be complete.

dantodd
06-29-2010, 8:50 PM
When the handgun roster is challenged - the argument will be that it doesn't ban an entire class of weapons the way DC or Chicago tried to do - but rather they ban specific handguns for not meeting their functional safety requirements, and that comparable guns that do meet those requirements are available. SCOTUS spoke of very general classes and types in Heller - and this would be one way to try and get around that.

CA will try to say that their testing is rooted in science and based on repeatable standard testing - thus it is not arbitrary (You might even see parallels drawn to cars).

The difference between guns and cars is that you have a FUNdamental right to a gun but not to a car. Further, as we appear to be on the road to strict scrutiny, the state will have to prove that the roster tests actually identify guns that are safer than those prohibited from being on the roster. This requires actual academic work to prove that LCIs and disconnects make the guns significantly safer than those guns without such devices.

ETA: also, cops like having guns that you and I can't have and if the roster is a safety issue the cops won't be able to buy them either. Certainly not for off duty carry. Do you really think the legislature is going to dig in so deeply as to piss off the cops?

Cokebottle
06-29-2010, 8:50 PM
That law just made my jaw drop when I found out about it having passed. How many crimes were committed with .50 BMG rifles? Exactly how many liquor stores have been held up by guys with 5-foot long, bolt-action, $5000 guns?
The talking heads claim that gang bangers use them (or rather, CAN use them) to shoot down police helicopters.

I'm not aware of a single case of an aircraft being taken down by ground fire.

N6ATF
06-29-2010, 9:10 PM
The talking heads claim that gang bangers use them (or rather, CAN use them) to shoot down police helicopters.

I'm not aware of a single case of an aircraft being taken down by ground fire.

Even in war?

383green
06-29-2010, 9:12 PM
Even in war?

One battle at a time. Let's get basic .50BMG rifles back first before we go after our full-auto M2HBs on quad mounts... :D

norcal-ar
06-29-2010, 9:20 PM
i guess i got internet again just in time! god i have been out of the loop for the last 6 months

socalblue
06-29-2010, 9:55 PM
That would be fine and dandy, except for several things:
Identical guns that differ only in cosmetics, such as the XD45 black vs the XD45 Bi-Tone, are not both on the roster.
NO 1911 meets the current standards.

If it were truly about safety, when new standards are implemented, previously rostered guns would be subject to testing under the new standards or removal from the roster, much like EPA/CARB standards.
A dealership may sell an automatic version of "a car", but not a manual version of the same car... when both versions were available the previous year. Like the roster, used cars may still be sold, but all current production must meet current standards or it cannot be sold in CA.

Also, if it were about safety, non-rostered guns would not be available via roster-exempt means... either to exempt persons, or through exempt transactions such as PPT or Intrafamilial, and like listed lowers, they would be illegal to import by new residents.

The only way I see the roster as surviving is to make some fundamental changes (Of course this would defeat the reason it was created):

1. No expiration (Once rostered always valid)
2. Models offered for sale prior to the roster taking affect are grandfathered
3. All variations of an approved handgun of a given design or family are valid (IE: Approve one Glock all variations are valid so long as they use the same design).

Requiring certain safety features would potentially be deemed reasonable, as long as it's not extreme (The current requirements likely would be OK).

383green
06-29-2010, 9:58 PM
Requiring certain safety features would potentially be deemed reasonable, as long as it's not extreme (The current requirements likely would be OK).

So, some/all existing M1911-derived guns would be OK as of some date, but no new company could ever enter the M1911-manufacturing business since the design lacks certain arbitrary features such as LCI and magazine disconnect?

Cokebottle
06-29-2010, 10:06 PM
Even in war?
Talking about civilian or police aircraft being taken down by civilian "non combatants" (though even the term "non combatants" could be argued in some parts of LA and Oakland.)

If a gang banger had taken out a PC chopper, it would have been all over the news.

dantodd
06-29-2010, 10:09 PM
Requiring certain safety features would potentially be deemed reasonable, as long as it's not extreme (The current requirements likely would be OK).

The roster would almost certainly be subject to strict scrutiny.

This means that some random set of safety features could not be created out of whole cloth. The law MUST fulfill a compelling state interest to pass a strict scrutiny test.

The state must identify a compelling interest for the roster. What would that be? To save lives? If that is the case they would have to show how many lives are lost (perhaps only in accidents) involving guns with and without the named safety features. Then they would have to show that requiring the named safety features would not only fulfill the state's interest AND that the roster is the least restrictive way to meet this state interest.

russ69
06-29-2010, 10:46 PM
I'm not a main stream thinker but don't get me wrong I'm very pro gun. Things are so bad in California I would just like to see a few minor changes as we move into the right direction and can get to a more reasonable place. Here is my current short term wish list.

1. Have the pistol manufacturers certify their products are safe under the current guidelines. Thus removing stupid and expensive re-testing for a change in gun finish or similar changes. Saving California money and expanding product choices.
1A. No safety card required. No 30 day buy limit. Instant check.
2. Once certified safe always certified safe.
2A. Must issue CCWs.
3. Keep the semi auto bullet button for now (and fully approve it) but release all makes. No more OLL, all semis would be good. All ten round semis fully legal.

This is doable and would be moving in the right direction. Later we could fight the mag capacity limits and eliminate the bullet button. I can see this happening and in a few short years. California would move from a overly controlled hostile environment into a slightly restricted but workable and free state. Californians would feel less oppressive government and could finally work and negotiate better firearms solutions.

Thanx, Russ

RRangel
06-29-2010, 11:02 PM
I'm not a main stream thinker but don't get me wrong I'm very pro gun. Things are so bad in California I would just like to see a few minor changes as we move into the right direction and can get to a more reasonable place. Here is my current short term wish list.

1. Have the pistol manufacturers certify their products are safe under the current guidelines. Thus removing stupid and expensive re-testing for a change in gun finish or similar changes. Saving California money and expanding product choices.

You do realize "current guidelines" have more to do with trying to keep gun manufacturers out of California and keeping firearms out of the citizens hands don't you? It's purely bunk. There is no reason for fraudulent laws.

2. Once certified safe always certified safe.

Can you clarify what you mean?

3. Keep the semi auto bullet button for now (and fully approve it) but release all makes. No more OLL, all semis would be good. All ten round semis fully legal.

That doesn't make sense. OLL are just receivers that people buy anywhere in this nation. Bullet buttons are fully approved, and there's a chance that pretty soon we won't have to worry about using them.

This is doable and would be moving in the right direction. Later we could fight the mag capacity limits and eliminate the bullet button. I can see this happening and in a few short years. California would move from a overly controlled hostile environment into a slightly restricted but workable and free state. Californians would feel less oppressive government and could finally work and negotiate better firearms solutions.

Thanx, Russ

The bullet buttons will go out the window with the illegal laws.

M198
06-29-2010, 11:05 PM
I'm not a main stream thinker but don't get me wrong I'm very pro gun. Things are so bad in California I would just like to see a few minor changes as we move into the right direction and can get to a more reasonable place. Here is my current short term wish list.

1. Have the pistol manufacturers certify their products are safe under the current guidelines. Thus removing stupid and expensive re-testing for a change in gun finish or similar changes. Saving California money and expanding product choices.
1A. No safety card required. No 30 day buy limit. Instant check.
2. Once certified safe always certified safe.
2A. Must issue CCWs.
3. Keep the semi auto bullet button for now (and fully approve it) but release all makes. No more OLL, all semis would be good. All ten round semis fully legal.

This is doable and would be moving in the right direction. Later we could fight the mag capacity limits and eliminate the bullet button. I can see this happening and in a few short years. California would move from a overly controlled hostile environment into a slightly restricted but workable and free state. Californians would feel less oppressive government and could finally work and negotiate better firearms solutions.

Thanx, Russ

It's been two years since Heller and DC gun laws make California look like Mogadishu. What makes you think that California will be better off in a few years than it is today?

HondaMasterTech
06-29-2010, 11:13 PM
There are more problems in California than gun laws. I've said before, many peoples main reasons for wanting to leave California aren't because of the gun laws. It's because of crime, gangs, taxes, wasted taxes, education system corruption etc.

I'd rather live in a properly run place than be armed to the teeth in a dangerous poorly run place that costs an arm and a leg to survive in.

hoffmang
06-29-2010, 11:28 PM
It's been two years since Heller and DC gun laws make California look like Mogadishu. What makes you think that California will be better off in a few years than it is today?

Because today is the first full day we can get around to kicking California's ***.

-Gene

383green
06-29-2010, 11:30 PM
Because today is the first full day we can get around to kicking California's ***.

This!

And even though we couldn't start the real ***-kicking before this week, we've already made progress in the last few years that I previously didn't expect to see in my lifetime.

1JimMarch
06-30-2010, 1:24 AM
I've finished my analysis of what McDonald means in terms of carry rights. This is significantly improved from the first version.

GM4spd
06-30-2010, 6:16 AM
The point is - McDonald on it's own doesn't change anything at a practical day-to-day level. You cannot suddenly go out and buy fully featured ARs or AKs. LOC is not suddenly legal. Concealed Carry is not suddenly legal. Your local CLEO is not all of the sudden going to "shall issue" your CCW application.

Those are the things that people are looking for. How does McDonald directly affect those practical issues directly in California. It doesn't.

.

Someone,got it right! Pete

Crom
06-30-2010, 8:34 AM
I've finished my analysis of what McDonald means in terms of carry rights. This is significantly improved from the first version.

I enjoyed that. I read it in its entirety. Thanks.

383green
06-30-2010, 8:43 AM
I enjoyed that. I read it in its entirety. Thanks.

Ditto!

And Jim, I think you have enough fiberglass in your diet already. ;)

Cokebottle
06-30-2010, 6:19 PM
3. Keep the semi auto bullet button for now (and fully approve it) but release all makes. No more OLL, all semis would be good. All ten round semis fully legal.
The problem with doing both of these is that there would no longer be any RAWs... Currently legal on-list lowers that are registered would most likely be required to wear the BB, which would limit them to 10rds.

No... The only thing that needs to be done to the AW law is toss it.

Cokebottle
06-30-2010, 6:21 PM
Can you clarify what you mean?

No expiration of rostered guns... meaning no requirement for the manufacturer to pay $$$ every year to keep a model on the roster.

grammaton76
06-30-2010, 6:37 PM
The problem with doing both of these is that there would no longer be any RAWs... Currently legal on-list lowers that are registered would most likely be required to wear the BB, which would limit them to 10rds.

No... The only thing that needs to be done to the AW law is toss it.

Agreed on tossing, but this wouldn't remove the registry.

SB23 "features" ban would still apply to all of these weapons, so they'd still be grandfathered. And they're not going to drop by everyone's house to check and see if it happened to be in a CA-compliant configuration and if it is, revoke their AW permit for that weapon. Why? Because if it happened to be non-compliant (thus requiring the AW permit), they'd have to leave the permit in place.

In short, they don't have the manpower to visit everyone when they might be able to de-register perhaps 1% of the registry. And I'm being charitable there with 1%, as anyone with a registered AR, HK, or AK is almost guaranteed to be in a SB23 prohibited configuration.

7x57
06-30-2010, 7:03 PM
I've finished my analysis of what McDonald means in terms of carry rights. This is significantly improved from the first version.

And having read it, I have now begun my analysis of what Jim's choice to carry a single-action revolver means in terms of Jim's sanity. :43:

7x57

N6ATF
06-30-2010, 8:15 PM
Here's something:

Asked by a reporter what type of handgun he would buy, he (McDonald) did not miss a beat. "I don't have no preference right now. I can use all of them," he said.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/man-who-challenged-gun-ban-i-am-so-happy-i-am-so-happy.html

Some organization should donate this man a gun asap. He deserves it!

AC

Tried to get them to approve my comment, twice, and apparently it wasn't radical enough (compared to some of the others):
@FernLaPlante Criminals killed disarmed victims. SCOTUS righted that wrong, namely, victim disarmament and criminal safety above all else.
@Lars Being denied the right to effective self-defense and then getting it restored is a joyful event. Living in fear that there is practically nothing you can do to save your own life, is something NOBODY should have to live with, whether you're in the U.S., or any country. And, the guns at issue in this case, handguns, are not able to be used to kill at any distance except contact range, most of the time. They are more effective when used to stop violent crime, which means most of the time they don't even have to be fired at a criminal, just shown, and when they are fired, most of the time they just incapacitate criminals instead of kill them.
@JCC It will be difficult for criminals to steal handguns, bullets first.
@someday Shotguns and rifles are unwieldy in most homes. Handguns are the most popular firearm for self-defense in and out of the home for a reason, and SCOTUS wrote as much.

1JimMarch
06-30-2010, 8:28 PM
And having read it, I have now begun my analysis of what Jim's choice to carry a single-action revolver means in terms of Jim's sanity

Dude. Style points matter :D.

FortCourageArmory
06-30-2010, 8:46 PM
Here's something:

Asked by a reporter what type of handgun he would buy, he (McDonald) did not miss a beat. "I don't have no preference right now. I can use all of them," he said.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/man-who-challenged-gun-ban-i-am-so-happy-i-am-so-happy.html

Some organization should donate this man a gun asap. He deserves it!

AC
Fort Courage Armory would be proud to donate a brand-new Glock or XD to Mr. MacDonald in the caliber of his choice....our contribution to striking a blow for liberty.

Connor P Price
06-30-2010, 10:14 PM
Fort Courage Armory would be proud to donate a brand-new Glock or XD to Mr. MacDonald in the caliber of his choice....our contribution to striking a blow for liberty.

That's why I shop at FCA.

7x57
06-30-2010, 10:26 PM
Dude. Style points matter :D.

Indeed, I love single-action revolvers. But I didn't say I was analyzing your style, or even your manly willingness to face someone with an automatic armed with a single-action.

You may well be a stylish, fearless madman. :D

7x57

Paul E
06-30-2010, 10:44 PM
I've finished my analysis of what McDonald means in terms of carry rights. This is significantly improved from the first version.

Excellent write up! I was obviously excited about mcdonald....but this helped me understand it in a more complete way.

Thanks a ton for that...I passed it around to a couple friends that I had a hard time explaining the current state of affairs to...

1JimMarch
06-30-2010, 11:20 PM
You know...this is off-topic for the thread but...ah, heck with it.

I don't actually need a LOT of gun.

Seriously. I'm not a cop. Odds of my having to go up against a whole street gang? Pretty dang small.

Now, that's not to say that thing is harmless. I've got six rounds of DoubleTap Ammo's most psycho stuff in there - edgy 357s from hell that match 10mm horsepower levels. From a 42oz gun they're controllable. I can also get off a fast first shot and the damn thing is unGodly accurate. Here in Tucson I get to practice out in the nearby desert at long ranges and short. And...I have reason to think I can keep my head and make six shots count - I haven't owned a car in 20 years, I've been piloting high-perf motorcycles that whole time. At age 44 my reactions are down some from my canyon racing days but...I think I can keep it together.

Does a Glock make more pure tactical sense? Sure. No question. But I like this thing. It's fun to shoot, ergonomics are superb, I've been tuning it for five years now to fit me to a "T". And if necessary I think it can at a minimum solve more problems than, say, a 38snubby.

And if that one in a million situation happens where the shooting is at extended ranges, I'll pit this sick critter up against anything people normally consider (or maybe "normal people consider") in a carry gun.

One more thing. Bulky or weird or whatever, I *do* carry it, absolutely without fail, period unless there's overwhelming legal reasons not to.

yellowfin
07-01-2010, 4:43 AM
42 oz? Wow, you get your exercise lugging that puppy around.

1JimMarch
07-01-2010, 5:13 AM
I'm 6'4" and around 280lbs. It ain't a big part of my body weight :D.

Havoc70
07-01-2010, 6:12 AM
I'm 6'4" and around 280lbs. It ain't a big part of my body weight :D.

Heh. Reminds me of someone seeing a picture of me with a Sig 226 on my belt and asked me, in all seriousness, why I bought a compact. The thing does look compact on me, as I'm 6'10" and 315-ish pounds.

1JimMarch
07-01-2010, 6:24 AM
Heh. Gray Peterson is almost your size. He's taller than me, that's for sure.

NightOwl
07-01-2010, 7:03 AM
WTF, Calguns is the land of the giants!?

*hides under the bed from the giants*

1JimMarch
07-01-2010, 7:06 AM
Meh. We're actually pretty harmless. Seriously, the trend is, us really big guys tend to be pretty mellow.

:)

grammaton76
07-01-2010, 4:09 PM
Meh. We're actually pretty harmless. Seriously, the trend is, us really big guys tend to be pretty mellow.

:)

Comes from public schooling. Everybody knows you can beat the crap out of the big kid (I'm only 6'2" but grew fast) because as soon as he fights back, the teachers will just pull him out and make him stand in timeout rather than the 3-4 kids beating him.

At least, that was my experience. Teaches you that no matter who started it, you're going to be the one to get punished.

Thankfully I didn't have to put up with public school past 3rd grade.

shooting4life
07-01-2010, 4:38 PM
Your right grammaton. I'm 6'5" and had the same problem growing up. It was always the kids under 5'5" with the big mouth.

Cokebottle
07-01-2010, 6:43 PM
WTF, Calguns is the land of the giants!?

*hides under the bed from the giants*
I'm on the far left of the photo next to the guy with the Klink helmet....

http://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q405/LCR_Peaches/BTK%20Red%20Lodge%202008/DSCN0430.jpg

Havoc70
07-01-2010, 8:00 PM
Meh. We're actually pretty harmless. Seriously, the trend is, us really big guys tend to be pretty mellow.

:)

QFT

I think we try harder to be mellow because we're already intimidating. I'm just trying to figure out how to turn my height into my good cause statement :).

stag1500
07-01-2010, 8:25 PM
QFT

I think we try harder to be mellow because we're already intimidating. I'm just trying to figure out how to turn my height into my good cause statement :).

"I need a to carry a gun because everybody finds me intimidating because of my height." :rofl2: I like it. Just make sure you get that vetted by Team Billy Jack.