Heller and Ammunition restrictions

[Californio]

So assume that Heller is ruled on correctly, would a correct ruling necessarily protect ammo. Many laws especially in the PRK that extremely restrict ammo are being proposed. A firearm is worthless without ammo and proper training/ use of said firearm requires ammo to be expended.

Are the anti's making an end-run around the 2nd with all the proposals that would make it harder to purchase ammo?

[aileron]

Are the anti's making an end-run around the 2nd with all the proposals that would make it harder to purchase ammo?

I would think so, to me this seems pretty clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk01MXx6IfE

[Liberty1]

Keep in mind Heller includes the issue of "functional" firearms. One is not very functional without powder and shot (ammo) or the cartridge boxes (mags) in which to carry them.

[aileron]

Keep in mind Heller includes the issue of "functional" firearms. One is not very functional without powder and shot (ammo) or the cartridge boxes (mags) in which to carry them.


:) I've wondered about this; how this will pan out for ammo bans. But am taking the lets get over this Heller hurdle first. Then we can see how it blows up in their face as the attacks start coming in. It will be fun to see your interpretation come to fruition in a fight in some state starting the whole process. :gunsmilie:

[Glock22Fan]

Keep in mind Heller includes the issue of "functional" firearms. One is not very functional without powder and shot (ammo) or the cartridge boxes (mags) in which to carry them.

But, if they can trim away around the edges of firearms, they can trim away round the edges of ammo.

"But, we let people own and bear .25 caliber single shot handguns with a barrel length of 42 inches, so we aren't voiding your 2nd Amendment rights, and we let you buy .25 caliber round nose ammo provided the bullets are made of chalk and every round is etched with your SSN, and you only buy one bullet a month, so what are you grumbling about?

[AngelDecoys]

So assume that Heller is ruled on correctly, would a correct ruling necessarily protect ammo. Many laws especially in the PRK that extremely restrict ammo are being proposed. A firearm is worthless without ammo and proper training/ use of said firearm requires ammo to be expended.

Are the anti's making an end-run around the 2nd with all the proposals that would make it harder to purchase ammo?

Heller is in all likelyhood not going to effect state limitations 1 Iota. Heck, the SCOTUS ruling might only apply to non-states. Any result is pure speculation at this point. It may effect things on the federal level but as there's no 14th amendment questions in the case, nothing statewise is likely to change, or be effected.

Heller could go our way (probably will), CA could ban everything the next day, and it would be legal. Without 14th incorporation, states are left to regulate their militias as they see fit (as stated in a previous SCOTUS ruling in the 1800's).

[Rob P.]

Heller is in all likelyhood not going to effect state limitations 1 Iota. Heck, the SCOTUS ruling might only apply to non-states. Any result is pure speculation at this point. It may effect things on the federal level but as there's no 14th amendment questions in the case, nothing statewise is likely to change, or be effected.

Heller could go our way (probably will), CA could ban everything the next day, and it would be legal. Without 14th incorporation, states are left to regulate their militias as they see fit (as stated in a previous SCOTUS ruling in the 1800's).

This raises an big problem. If Heller is only applicable to "non states" then it would also presumably apply to US territories which are administered under our Constitution and laws.

Could you imagine the uproar if it turns out that the citizens of Samoa, Guam, Howland Island, the Virgin Islands, Palmyra atoll, etc have a RTKBA while US citizens don't?

[AngelDecoys]

This raises an big problem. If Heller is only applicable to "non states" then it would also presumably apply to US territories which are administered under our Constitution and laws.

Could you imagine the uproar if it turns out that the citizens of Samoa, Guam, Howland Island, the Virgin Islands, Palmyra atoll, etc have a RTKBA while US citizens don't?

I absolutely agree it raises huge issues. Not knowing exactly how the Supremes view such things its all speculation on how they will rule and how narrow their decision will be. Everyone agrees however, that it will be narrow however they go.

Could be a ruling for only non-states. Could be soley for federal laws. Could be any number of scenarios. They could infer an individual right but at the lowest level of scrutiny so all but everything is still on the table for banning.

They will in all likleyhood NOT push incorporation as the issue was not raised with this case. They may even postpone an incorporation case for another 50 years.

BTW - All but 6 states already have RKBA in their state consitutions (CA does not) so it wouldn't effect states that already recognize RKBA.

[hoffmang]

It is correct that Heller will not lead to immediate incorporation against the states. However, that will likely be quickly followed up on in subsequent cases. That said, once incorporated, Heller is likely to have a significant positive impact on ammunition restrictions that aren't for compelling government requirements. An example of a restriction that will probably pass muster are existing limits on total volume of black powder one can store at home.

-Gene

[CCWFacts]

Could you imagine the uproar if it turns out that the citizens of Samoa, Guam, Howland Island, the Virgin Islands, Palmyra atoll, etc have a RTKBA while US citizens don't?

I thought about this. Most of those territories have very strict gun laws, comparable to DC's laws, or maybe even more restrictive. They also have political situations where RKBA will never happen. They are like the worst Democratic "machine cities" you can imagine. Heller will be a great thing for RKBA activists in those areas, because they would have no hope otherwise.

[AngelDecoys]

However, that will likely be quickly followed up on in subsequent cases. That said, once incorporated, Heller is likely to have a significant positive impact on ammunition restrictions that aren't for compelling government requirements. An example of a restriction that will probably pass muster are existing limits on total volume of black powder one can store at home.

-Gene

I just hope the subsequent cases are sooner, rather than later. Waiting for another 50 years to pass by before 14th incorporation takes place would try my patience too much.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Heller[/I] could go our way (probably will), CA could ban everything the next day, and it would be legal. Without 14th incorporation, states are left to regulate their militias as they see fit (as stated in a previous SCOTUS ruling in the 1800's).

That is why most view a pro RKBA decision in Heller as just the beginning. Both Federal and State law draw a distinction between the organized militia, such as the National Guard and Naval Militia, and the UNorganized militia, i.e. everyone else.

As I see it, this is one of the paramount flaws in D.C.'s argument. They say the 2nd applies to the militia, but fail to acknowledge the existence of the UNorganized militia...they dont even mention the unorganized militia once in their 49 page petition for cert.

According to the US Code on militias, the organized and UNorganized militia are equals. With this in mind, its almost as if D.C. is actually supporting our side...:)

[hoffmang]

Follow up cases are in some cases already filed.

-Gene

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Follow up cases are in some cases already filed.

-Gene

Likely NOT in the 9th Circuit...not YET at least.

[FallingDown]

The 9th circuit. What a joke, of a laugh, of a mockery, of the US legal system.

I wonder if the 9th should just get to it already and rule Kosovo, I mean California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington as independent sovereign states and then those states could make a treaty with Illinois, NJ, NY, Mass and MD to form the Grand Blue Republic.

You gotta wonder if some historian will be harping on about how the trends were obvious and anyone with a 85 IQ, could easily see that civil war II which began in 2060, had it's beginnings in 1864, I mean 1964.

[hoffmang]

Likely NOT in the 9th Circuit...not YET at least.

Au contraire. There is a case, stayed for Heller, in the 9th Circuit at this exact second that will likely bring incorporation after the stay is lifted and judicial notice of the outcome of Heller is taken...

-Gene

[mymonkeyman]

Au contraire. There is a case, stayed for Heller, in the 9th Circuit at this exact second that will likely bring incorporation after the stay is lifted and judicial notice of the outcome of Heller is taken...

-Gene

You got a docket no. / caption?

[hoffmang]

C99-04389MMJ - Nordyke v. King which is on appeal and stayed.

-Gene

[mymonkeyman]

C99-04389MMJ - Nordyke v. King which is on appeal and stayed.

-Gene

Lol a 1999 filed case. Wow this case has a crazy procedural history. I don't think it is a good post-Heller case, since it deals solely with gun bans on county land. A post-Heller ninth circuit might not reach the issue of incorporation by holding that even if there was incorporation, banning guns on county land is permissible under Heller.

[AngelDecoys]

Well this is fun, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Any incorporation case may be years out. Just because one is filed doesn't mean the Supremes will take it. And if its from only 1 appellate court, over two contradicting one's they would probably pass. They pass on a lot cases.

Even then I'm not sure this is the right sitting Supreme Court to hear it. Strict Constructionists may put more value on the 10th, over our desire at 14th incorporation. This court has not been great on broadening 14th liberties, rather it has voted fairly consistently on limiting civil liberties and increasing federal power (At least over the last 2 years). In my mind, that makes any incorporation case down the line (with this court) somewhat risky on our end.

[hoffmang]

Lol a 1999 filed case. Wow this case has a crazy procedural history. I don't think it is a good post-Heller case, since it deals solely with gun bans on county land. A post-Heller ninth circuit might not reach the issue of incorporation by holding that even if there was incorporation, banning guns on county land is permissible under Heller.

One has to understand the procedural history and the su sponte raising of the 2A to understand why it is actually quite well situated for incorporation.

-Gene