What else will McDonald incorporate

[IrishPirate]

I thought I remembered hearing that other weapons such as knives, axes, swords, etc. were ruled by some court to be covered under "arms" in the second amendment. If we get incorporation through McDonald, does the language of the complaint allow for a decision which would cover these items as well, or will McDonald deal only with the incorporation of the 2A as it pertains to firearms? I'm no legal expert, but if it's a flat out incorporation of the 2A, wouldn't that include firearms AND other weapons covered by the 2A (assuming that what i heard about the other weapons was true)? If i'm missing something please explain it to me....

[Gray Peterson]

Maloney v. Rice being held in abeyence with McDonald. Expect a GVR.

[IrishPirate]

thanks...but what's GVR? likei said, not a legal expert

[Window_Seat]

Grant, Vacate, and Remand.

Erik.

[IrishPirate]

ok, so basically SCOTUS would GVR back to the lower courts and say something like "review our decision on McDonald when deciding this case"? Kinda like telling them, we're not going to hear this case, but we expect that you'll rule in this way, otherwise we'll have to hear it...and you don't want that to happen.........is it that kind of thing?

also, that case deals strictly with nunchucks for martial arts use in the home in NY, and doesn't really grant any further use of them, nor the use of any other non-firearm weapons, so is there any other cases that WOULD grant 24/7 carry and possession of such weapons?

[Gray Peterson]

A GVR usually means "Review it since you most likely got it wrong in your decision".

[press1280]

ok, so basically SCOTUS would GVR back to the lower courts and say something like "review our decision on McDonald when deciding this case"? Kinda like telling them, we're not going to hear this case, but we expect that you'll rule in this way, otherwise we'll have to hear it...and you don't want that to happen.........is it that kind of thing?

also, that case deals strictly with nunchucks for martial arts use in the home in NY, and doesn't really grant any further use of them, nor the use of any other non-firearm weapons, so is there any other cases that WOULD grant 24/7 carry and possession of such weapons?

We'll have to get 24/7 carry of a handgun first, then when that's settled the other weapons will soon follow. Unless McDonald drops a (good) bomb, it won't rule on anything other than home handgun possession enforceable against the states.

[IrishPirate]

We'll have to get 24/7 carry of a handgun first, then when that's settled the other weapons will soon follow. Unless McDonald drops a (good) bomb, it won't rule on anything other than home handgun possession enforceable against the states.

I thought Heller said you could have a handgun in your home, and McDonald was taking it a step further to incorporate the 2A by saying "not just in your home"....perhaps I'm wrong though, it's been a while since I read the complaints/decision on Heller and reviewed the McDonald case.

But so far it's safe to say that there is no case law to quote saying that non-firearm weapons are covered by the 2A?

[N6ATF]

Heller=D.C. home
McDonald=home everywhere other than D.C.
Palmer=D.C. public
Sykes=public everywhere other than D.C.

[hoffmang]

Heller=D.C. home
McDonald=home everywhere other than D.C.
Palmer=D.C. public
Sykes=public everywhere other than D.C.

Once McDonald is in place, all federal rulings on the 2A will generally apply nationwide. Palmer = D.C. public and persuasive evidence of public everywhere other than D.C. too.

-Gene

[N6ATF]

Oh, well I guess Palmer and Sykes don't exactly address the same things either, otherwise you wouldn't need both.

[ke6guj]

Oh, well I guess Palmer and Sykes don't exactly address the same things either, otherwise you wouldn't need both.

even if they are identical, you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[N6ATF]

And, considering how fracked up the DC Circuit is, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge waits for Sykes to go all the way to the 9th, then get denied cert, or GVR.

[hoffmang]

even if they are identical, you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Also, circuit splits are beautiful things.

-Gene

[BillCA]

I thought I remembered hearing that other weapons such as knives, axes, swords, etc. were ruled by some court to be covered under "arms" in the second amendment. If we get incorporation through McDonald, does the language of the complaint allow for a decision which would cover these items as well, or will McDonald deal only with the incorporation of the 2A as it pertains to firearms? I'm no legal expert, but if it's a flat out incorporation of the 2A, wouldn't that include firearms AND other weapons covered by the 2A (assuming that what i heard about the other weapons was true)? If i'm missing something please explain it to me....

That's sort of "jumping the gun" in modern legal proceedings. The first win we had was Heller which said that the 2A right was an individual right. The McDonald case should incorporate the 2A right to be binding on the states - meaning state power to regulate arms is limited by the 2nd Amendment.

Now, if you asked anyone in 1789 what "arms" were, you'd get a broad definition. Today, however, that question will need to be settled by the courts because lawyers will argue whether some tool falls under the definition of "arms".

Some items we'll see argued that aren't protected as "arms" are:

• Modern body armor - the descendant of chain & plated mail.
• Miitary helmets - the descendant of leather & metal helmets of old.
• Certain knives like dirks, daggers and switchblades because they have no "legitimate" use. Well, besides defending yourself in extremis.
• Batons, Billy clubs and similar instruments
• Metal/plastic knuckles
• Crossbows & "long" bows
• Nuchucks, throwing stars and similar "martial arts" weapons.

I'd expect a future debate to define arms versus "artillery" weapons too.

The bedwetters who fear weapons will argue that none of the above are protected as "arms". What we need to do is try to focus the debate on the misuse of arms, not the mere possession. If you legally defend yourself it should not matter whether you used a gun, hunting knife, a dirk, switchblade or a broadsword. But the man who unlawfully attacks another with such a weapon should be punished firmly.