Thoughts on McDonald v Chicago

[bigstones]

One of the problems with Heller is that the court left ambiguous what regulation of Second Amendment rights is permissible, if any. Justice Scalia seems to indicate that some regulation is permissible when he says:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

So this leaves a lot of questions to be decided.

[speedrrracer]

One of the problems with Heller is that the court left ambiguous what regulation of Second Amendment rights is permissible, if any. Justice Scalia seems to indicate that some regulation is permissible when he says:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

So this leaves a lot of questions to be decided.

That true, and a good point.

None of us know what was in their collective minds, but the Scalia verbiage and other notes from Heller 1 & 2 implied to me that they have in mind a middle ground.

Where the middle ground will end up....I have my own ideas, but for certain:
1) it won't end up anywhere anytime soon
2) it will be a place much less to our liking if we don't work with organizations like CGF who are approaching the situation intelligently.

[CDFingers]

lojack12 makes an excellent post and with excellent information. lojack12 also makes assertions about inconsistencies in law. I agree that legal does not equal lawful.

I make this post because of some wording in McDonald, which I'll put below, that comes from around p. 102 : in the .pdf:


"The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship."


From the above quote, I find some interesting contradictions with the quote lojack12 discovered regarding the "right" to keep and bear arms.

So, contradictions like this should be uncovered and remedied so things are more clear to more people.

Thoughts on these contradictions?

CDFingers

[dantodd]

lojack12 makes an excellent post and with excellent information. lojack12 also makes assertions about inconsistencies in law. I agree that legal does not equal lawful.

I make this post because of some wording in McDonald, which I'll put below, that comes from around p. 102 : in the .pdf:


"The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship."


From the above quote, I find some interesting contradictions with the quote lojack12 discovered regarding the "right" to keep and bear arms.

So, contradictions like this should be uncovered and remedied so things are more clear to more people.

Thoughts on these contradictions?

CDFingers

The problem is that the article quoted by LoJack was written in 1880 and Heller was written in 2009. The 14th amendment jurisprudence was far from fully fleshed out in 1880 and the Cruikshank opinion that the article relies on is simply bad case law. You'll also notice that most of majority relied on the due process clause in Heller while only Thomas was willing to outright overturn the finding in Cruikshank. At the time of the article it was believed that the PorI clause would be the functional portion of the 14th amendment used to expand rights but because of Cruikshank and the courts strict adherence to stare decisis we've ended up relying on due process too much.

If we we still working under the interpretation of this article the state of California could literally outlaw the discussions on CalGuns. Is this something you think is good?

[CDFingers]

Since CalGuns.net is privately owned, I'm not so sure the "banning" of discussion violates the First.

As regards the PorI clause, I'm seeing McDonald as the way we can bring CA back into compliance with the Second.

However, I believe that the best lawyers who favor the 2A will try to define "to infringe" in a way that is good for California, ideally striking down many laws.

CDFingers

[OleCuss]

Since CalGuns.net is privately owned, I'm not so sure the "banning" of discussion violates the First.
.
.
.
CDFingers

I think you missed where he said the state could ban this discussion. I don't think he has any problem with Kestryll being able to do as he wishes with his own forum.