PDA

View Full Version : if courts go in our favor?


milsurpshooter
11-25-2007, 1:33 AM
what can we challenge or appeal. i'm looking for gene on this.

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-25-2007, 2:00 AM
From Sarah Brady:

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

…from the long-standing machine gun ban…to the 1968 Gun Control Act…to the Brady background check law.

…to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

:D:D:D

milsurpshooter
11-25-2007, 2:16 AM
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

DesertDawg
11-25-2007, 3:48 AM
Last night, I heard a VERY interesting interview of a Supreme Court analyst on a talk radio show. As it sits right now, there are 4 Justices who are most likely going to favor "our" side, so there needs to be a "swing" vote cast. His opinion was that it could boil down to Justice Kennedy (a Reagan appointee), but also stated that Justice Ginsberg MIGHT come through, too (Ginsberg supposedly owns guns, and goes target practising quite often).

If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, there will be a myriad of challenges, AND the outcome of their decisions will supposedly get kicked down to an Appellate Court for some sort of review.

Things are starting to look a lot better, but the fat lady hasn't sung....yet!

FreedomIsNotFree
11-25-2007, 4:14 AM
I've not convinced the State laws, so long as they are not outright bans, wont stand up to a Constitutional challenge. Even with the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by SCOTUS, does it really change all that much?

Take this into consideration...over 40 States already recognize RKBA in their state Constitutions. Current gun laws in those states have stood up to 2nd Amendment challenges.

Piper
11-25-2007, 4:36 AM
I've not convinced the State laws, so long as they are not outright bans, wont stand up to a Constitutional challenge. Even with the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by SCOTUS, does it really change all that much?

Take this into consideration...over 40 States already recognize RKBA in their state Constitutions. Current gun laws in those states have stood up to 2nd Amendment challenges.

From what I've read as far as laws in the 40 free states (meaning 2A friendly), they have significantly less restrictions than the anti-2A states, those being California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois etc etc. So I'm thinking that comparing the 40 with the 10 is for all intents and purposes comparing apples and oranges. As far as I know, it may not change a thing in the greater 40, but all I can see at this point is the lesser 10 getting up to speed with the 40. My hope is that the PRK's AWB goes away, open and concealed carry and without government permission is established and quite frankly, those who choose to have rock and roll on their weapon of choice should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from government. Also, laws like 12020 and 653k should be reformed to restrict violent criminals, but law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess and/or carry without concern. Afterall, a persons choice of self defense shouldn't be restricted to firearms only.

CitaDeL
11-25-2007, 5:57 AM
what can we challenge or appeal. i'm looking for gene on this.

hmm well I'd like to see PC12031 challenged as it forbids loaded weapons in incorporated areas AND superConstitutionally permits peace officers to inspect my weapon under threat of arrest.

Another that could be challenged is PC626.9, the prohibition of firearms within 1000 feet of a school. This on the Federal level I believe was struck down already, but I would have to do my homework on it- Im not sure.

Another could be the assualt weapons ban with its plethora of superficial criteria that makes some weapons 'bad' while leaving some other almost identical wepaons 'okay'.

Those are the ones I think 'Heller' could really grease the skids for...

GJJ
11-25-2007, 7:04 AM
Since it says "bear arms" in addition to just keeping arms. Maybe we can get Alaska/Vermont style carry in 50 states. The original intent was not that we would need a "permission slip" to carry a gun.

I have a Cali CCW. It would be nice not to have to go through the process every two years.

dustoff31
11-25-2007, 8:25 AM
From what I've read as far as laws in the 40 free states (meaning 2A friendly), they have significantly less restrictions than the anti-2A states, those being California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois etc etc. So I'm thinking that comparing the 40 with the 10 is for all intents and purposes comparing apples and oranges. As far as I know, it may not change a thing in the greater 40, but all I can see at this point is the lesser 10 getting up to speed with the 40. My hope is that the PRK's AWB goes away, open and concealed carry and without government permission is established and quite frankly, those who choose to have rock and roll on their weapon of choice should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from government. Also, laws like 12020 and 653k should be reformed to restrict violent criminals, but law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess and/or carry without concern. Afterall, a persons choice of self defense shouldn't be restricted to firearms only.

Case in point. I received an updated book of state firearms laws from BATF last week. California state and municipal firearms laws take up 67 pages in the book. Arizona has 4 and a quarter pages.

On your other point. I can see the AW ban going away. But I think the best we can hope for is shall issue CCW in CA.

Pthfndr
11-25-2007, 8:41 AM
I've not convinced the State laws, so long as they are not outright bans, wont stand up to a Constitutional challenge. Even with the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by SCOTUS, does it really change all that much?

Take this into consideration...over 40 States already recognize RKBA in their state Constitutions. Current gun laws in those states have stood up to 2nd Amendment challenges.

I'd have to agree with this. Things like CA's AW ban could be challenged, and would probably get struck down. Our, or any other state's CCW laws that are "may issue" rather than "shall issue", could be challenged. The "good cause" requirement would probably be struck down, but not the requirement to apply for the CCW permit and undergo a back ground check to make sure one is not a prohibited person.

Just my opinion, but I don't think you will see prohibitions on open carry in city limits/incorporated areas abolished. With all the sheeple out there the other side could make the arguement that open carry compares to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That it could cause unnecessary panic. That it could be considered a public nuisance.

Keep in mind that the ONLY law this ruling will have an immediate effect on is the DC gun ban. Every other law has to be challenged in court. That means that first, a person or group of persons, has to have standing to challenge the law. Then they have to lawyer up. Then go through the legal process - all the way to the USSC if necessary. That means BIG dollars. And it has to happen for each and every law you want struck down.

As Bweise has hinted, things are already underway in some areas. But the process is very long. It will most likely take years before we see significant change.

Piper
11-25-2007, 8:44 AM
Case in point. I received an updated book of state firearms laws from BATF last week. California state and municipal firearms laws take up 67 pages in the book. Arizona has 4 and a quarter pages.

On your other point. I can see the AW ban going away. But I think the best we can hope for is shall issue CCW in CA.

What you've observed doesn't surprise me. I'm actually thinking about getting a guard card just so I can carry my baton in the car again. I read that with my POST certificate and a guard card, I'm covered. I'll have to do some more research just to make sure all of my ducks are in a row.

4 Brigada
11-25-2007, 9:15 AM
if courts go in our favor?

We can look forward to keeping our guns just a while longer. Nothing will change. What can we expect if it goes against, is what you should ask. Be prepared get a shovel, a steel treated / weather proof container and a GPS. Take up camera safari and/or bird watching. and for the handgunners darts

bulgron
11-25-2007, 9:34 AM
We can look forward to keeping our guns just a while longer. Nothing will change. What can we expect if it goes against, is what you should ask. Be prepared get a shovel, a steel treated / weather proof container and a GPS. Take up camera safari and/or bird watching. and for the handgunners darts

I don't know if this is true. If SCOTUS goes against us, then the current legal situation changes not at all. The courts in this state are ALREADY ruling that we have no individual right to arms. And government in this state is already showing itself to be more than happy to infringe on our ability to own and use arms.

This is mostly because we have no pro-RKBA statement in our state constitution.

So I hardly see how things can get any worse just because of this ruling. If they go against us, all that happens is we continue this grim year after year fight to stop the erosion of our gun rights in this state.

In other states, a bad Heller decision will mean next to nothing because of their state constitutions. However, people in those states can look forward to another Clinton-style AW ban on the federal level somewhere down the road. We won't care as much about that in this state, because we already suffer from a AW ban that isn't going to go away, ever, without a favorable Heller decision.

Whether it goes for us or against us, I don't see Heller making a huge immediate, instant, impact on this state. In fact, the only immediate fall-out from this case is whether I'll be able to win those arguments when people tell me that the 2A is a collective right. :)

M. Sage
11-25-2007, 9:50 AM
I disagree. An unfavorable ruling won't have an immediate effect, but our enemies will be emboldened beyond anything they can dream of.

bulgron
11-25-2007, 10:41 AM
I disagree. An unfavorable ruling won't have an immediate effect, but our enemies will be emboldened beyond anything they can dream of.

How much more emboldened can they be in this state? Nationally, the Democrats won't even talk about gun control because they're scared they'll lose the independent's vote. But in this state, it's full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. They simply aren't afraid of the gun lobby here because gun owners in this state don't vote based on RKBA concerns.

Gun rights in CA are probably completely dead from now until forever unless Heller goes our way.

mblat
11-25-2007, 10:45 AM
How much more emboldened can they be in this state? Nationally, the Democrats won't even talk about gun control because they're scared they'll lose the independent's vote. But in this state, it's full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. They simply aren't afraid of the gun lobby here because gun owners in this state don't vote based on RKBA concerns.

Gun rights in CA are probably completely dead from now until forever unless Heller goes our way.

Agreed. They only reason we have it is all quite on gun control front is that the whole issue isn't important. If democrats will decide to drive it really hard they will easily win. I almost willing to bet that is they will want to extend AW definition to "all center fire magazine fed rifles" they won't have too difficult time to do that.

M. Sage
11-25-2007, 11:45 AM
How much more emboldened can they be in this state?

Full confiscation?

CCWFacts
11-25-2007, 12:04 PM
Things like CA's AW ban could be challenged, and would probably get struck down.

It could be modified, not struck down. California could argue that the law should be maintained, with the only change that registrations are re-opened. That would leave the law mostly intact but would allow Californians to exercise their RKBA. This type of modification of laws is going to be a common outcome in a situation like this, and we should factor that in to our expectations.

subdjoe
11-25-2007, 12:13 PM
"This is mostly because we have no pro-RKBA statement in our state constitution."

This is what I can't understand. Our state constitution is about what the STATE can do and what powers we have ceeded to it, not about what rights We the People have.
Take into account Art. 3, sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of California, which says that the Constitution of the US is the law of the land, and I fail to see how and why the politicians and the courts are able to legislate and rule as they do.
We have gotten away from the concept "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and are at the point of "the people derive their rights from the beneficence of the State." And all too many people seem to find no problem with that concept.

Piper
11-25-2007, 1:22 PM
A few of things that we need to consider:

1. Elitist politicians consider the constitution to be a "living" document to be changed at their will to further their political ambitions and suit their agendas.

2. There are people out there that prefer freebies in the form of welfare rather than obtain things through hard work. Politicians take advantage of that, and promise those people that under their [Politicians] care, they will be taken care of. No real incentive is offered to encourage people to free themselves of the welfare prison.

3. Since these welfare recipients live in blighted areas ravaged by crime and violence, and a majority of them barely have a 6th grade education, they believe what the politicians tell them and the politicians blame the inanimate object rather than the offender who is probably the son or daughter of these welfare recipients. If the court rules in favor of a collective right, the Confiscations will begin and the politicians will justify it like they always do. And of course that will be to protect the children. So, that's my analysis.

I'm betting on a 6-3 split in our favor of an individual right, even though it's been said that Scalia leans more toward a collective right than an individual right. So I'm thinking that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Ginsberg and Kennedy will vote for an individual right. But then I am just regurgitating what analysts more knowledgeable than I are saying.

bulgron
11-25-2007, 2:04 PM
On a personal note....

I have wanted to get out of California for over a decade now, but haven't for one reason or another, mostly because my wife is happy here. But if they started full confiscation of firearms in this state, I would:

1. Immediately jump in my truck and move my guns to relatives outside of the state until
2. I moved out of this state with or without my wife, which would happen within months of a confiscation bill being passed.

That would seriously be the end of my stay in CA, and that would be the end of the taxes and income that I bring to this state.

My expectation is that most gun owners in CA would think and act the same way.

I don't know if the politicians in this hell hole give a crap about that, but there is such a thing as a line too far, and gun confiscation is one such line.

Charliegone
11-25-2007, 5:03 PM
Like Piper said, I think 653k as well would have to be reorganized if SCOTUS votes in our favor. So batons, nunchaku, switchblades, hell even a cane sword would be legal to carry by the LAC (law abiding citizen)

hoffmang
11-25-2007, 6:32 PM
what can we challenge or appeal. i'm looking for gene on this.

Ok, so back on topic.

There are some strategic reasons that we should be a touch careful after a positive Heller in California. There are other circuits where we'd like to make incorporation via the 14th amendment against the states very clear *cough, cough* Chicago *cough, cough*.

Here, there are a bunch of things that aren't invalidating entire laws but would significantly broaden how and which toys we can get in California. AW permits comes to mind. When the 2nd means an individual right, then all sorts of things that were arbitrary under state law need more than arbitrary backing by the state to deny you.

Once we get a couple of the other circuits going our way, it will be high time to really push in the 9th. One of the short term cases that will be directly impacted by Heller/Parker will be the Alameda Gun Show ban lawsuit. We may just get incorporation then and there right after Parker/Heller.

From there we should go after AW's piece by piece and then start litigating some of the errors in State Law with the fact that its an individual right putting wind in the sails of those cases.

AW restrictions will get scaled back strongly first. Then we go after the "safe" handgun list, and finally may issue CCW or the ban on open carry. Somewhere in there we'll have a good chance to make the "no issue" of CLEO letters for NFA weapons go away as well.

That all utterly ignores what goodies we may get from other Circuits on the federal level. As a note - Federal laws should NOT be challenged in the 9th Circuit. There are other far more gun favorable circuits that will challenge some of the federal badness - no rehab for felons, 922(r), sporting purpose, etc.

Things that we shouldn't try to stop (because we'll lose) are HSC's, "instant" Brady checks, etc.

-Gene

Charliegone
11-25-2007, 6:44 PM
Ok, so back on topic.

There are some strategic reasons that we should be a touch careful after a positive Heller in California. There are other circuits where we'd like to make incorporation via the 14th amendment against the states very clear *cough, cough* Chicago *cough, cough*.

Here, there are a bunch of things that aren't invalidating entire laws but would significantly broaden how and which toys we can get in California. AW permits comes to mind. When the 2nd means an individual right, then all sorts of things that were arbitrary under state law need more than arbitrary backing by the state to deny you.

Once we get a couple of the other circuits going our way, it will be high time to really push in the 9th. One of the short term cases that will be directly impacted by Heller/Parker will be the Alameda Gun Show ban lawsuit. We may just get incorporation then and there right after Parker/Heller.

From there we should go after AW's piece by piece and then start litigating some of the errors in State Law with the fact that its an individual right putting wind in the sails of those cases.

AW restrictions will get scaled back strongly first. Then we go after the "safe" handgun list, and finally may issue CCW or the ban on open carry. Somewhere in there we'll have a good chance to make the "no issue" of CLEO letters for NFA weapons go away as well.

That all utterly ignores what goodies we may get from other Circuits on the federal level. As a note - Federal laws should NOT be challenged in the 9th Circuit. There are other far more gun favorable circuits that will challenge some of the federal badness - no rehab for felons, 922(r), sporting purpose, etc.

Things that we shouldn't try to stop (because we'll lose) are HSC's, "instant" Brady checks, etc.

-Gene

Yeah that's what I was pretty much thinking...AW permits would probably be easier to get, etc. Those were exactly my main concerns, AW's, safety list, and CCW.

CCWFacts
11-25-2007, 7:13 PM
At the Federal level I want to see 922(o) get thrown in the rubbish bin of history, and I think that might very well happen. And then I want CA to make NFA permits and CLEO sign-off non-discretionary. And all of those things might really happen.

Remember, permit systems of all flavors will probably survive, so long as they are non-discretionary. Many of our current bans (CA new AW ban, Fed new MG ban) will still exist, with the modification that new registrations will be allowed. I'm ok with that.

bwiese
11-25-2007, 7:18 PM
We should not make NFA CLEO signoffs a big thing.

Those can always be bypassed by trusts.

Fight against the real bans.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-25-2007, 8:48 PM
Work smarter...not harder.

hoffmang
11-25-2007, 9:19 PM
I concur on the ranking of issues, but sometimes the ease at which something is doable factors into the matrix. Also, there are some NFA toys that do require CLEO like sign off, if you're following my thought process. But that thought process is not yet ready for the full light of day as to explaining the implications to the middle of the road folks.

-Gene