The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Webleymkv · June 28, 2010, 04:30 PM

OK, I read Alito's delivery of the decision and briefly skimmed over Scalia and Thomas' opinions. As far as how existing laws might be changed, here are the most likely things I see coming:

No-issue CCW like IL is probably in the most danger. Alito noted that the right to self-defense, and thusly the Second Amendment, does indeed extend beyond the home. Under such a statement, I simply do not see how No-issue could stand.

I think that may-issue could also be in trouble. Remember, owning a handgun was not flat-out illegal in either Chicago or D.C. as both cities had registration procedures in place. The issue was that both cities simply refused to register any handguns as allowed by law. The situation really wasn't all that dissimilar to that in many may-issue states. While it is theoretically possible to get a CCL in Los Angeles, New York, or Boston, it is nearly impossible to do so unless you are very wealthy, politically connected, or both.

I also think it may be possible that the '86 machine gun ban might be in danger, though not as great as no-issue and may-issue CCW. Again, this is a case of the government refusing to to register a firearm as allowed by law. The only thing that might save the '86 MG ban would be if SCOTUS decided that a machine gun, being a "dangerous or unusual weapon" can be justifiably banned completely.

Finally, while I think most of the NFA will probably stand, I can see the CLEO signoff requirement being removed as it is completely discretionary. I've seen speculation that the $200 tax might also be removed, but I rather doubt it as $200 is no longer the prohibitive fee that it was in 1934.

Basically, I'm getting that SCOTUS isn't particularly friendly to discretionary laws. While I don't like it, I agree with Wildalaska that AWB's probably aren't in any immediate legal danger although the political support for them seems to be waning.

Also, there may not be as many legal battles ahead as many think. What needs to be remembered about D.C. and Chicago is that those particular cities have power and resources out of proportion to their actual size. D.C., being a federal entity, can draw on many of the resources of the federal government as a whole rather than just those of the city itself. Smilarly, Chicago has had somewhat of a stranglehold on the politics of the state of Illinois for decades due to the lopsided population of the state. Mayor Dailey is one of the most powerful figures not only in Chicago, but in Springfield as well and can thusly draw upon the resources of not only his own city, but the rest of the state as well. Other cities which are in similar circumstances would probably include New York and Boston.

However, in states with more than one major metropolitan area like Florida, Texas, and California, the balance of political power is not so lopsided. The Mayor of Orlando is balanced somewhat by the Mayor of Miami, the Mayor of Dallas is balanced somewhat by the Mayor of Houston, and the Mayor of Los Angeles is balanced by the Mayors of San Francisco and San Diego. Ironically, some of California's more draconian laws may go the quietest as, given the current economic condition of the state, California simply may not be able to afford a plethora of costly legal battles. Should, for example, San Francisco be sued over gun laws, I can see Los Angeles and San Diego not wanting to give up badly needed resources to help SF fight.

The next battles, most likely, will be no-issue probably in IL followed by may-issue most likely in CA or NY.

June 28, 2010, 04:30 PM	#62
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	OK, I read Alito's delivery of the decision and briefly skimmed over Scalia and Thomas' opinions. As far as how existing laws might be changed, here are the most likely things I see coming: No-issue CCW like IL is probably in the most danger. Alito noted that the right to self-defense, and thusly the Second Amendment, does indeed extend beyond the home. Under such a statement, I simply do not see how No-issue could stand. I think that may-issue could also be in trouble. Remember, owning a handgun was not flat-out illegal in either Chicago or D.C. as both cities had registration procedures in place. The issue was that both cities simply refused to register any handguns as allowed by law. The situation really wasn't all that dissimilar to that in many may-issue states. While it is theoretically possible to get a CCL in Los Angeles, New York, or Boston, it is nearly impossible to do so unless you are very wealthy, politically connected, or both. I also think it may be possible that the '86 machine gun ban might be in danger, though not as great as no-issue and may-issue CCW. Again, this is a case of the government refusing to to register a firearm as allowed by law. The only thing that might save the '86 MG ban would be if SCOTUS decided that a machine gun, being a "dangerous or unusual weapon" can be justifiably banned completely. Finally, while I think most of the NFA will probably stand, I can see the CLEO signoff requirement being removed as it is completely discretionary. I've seen speculation that the $200 tax might also be removed, but I rather doubt it as $200 is no longer the prohibitive fee that it was in 1934. Basically, I'm getting that SCOTUS isn't particularly friendly to discretionary laws. While I don't like it, I agree with Wildalaska that AWB's probably aren't in any immediate legal danger although the political support for them seems to be waning. Also, there may not be as many legal battles ahead as many think. What needs to be remembered about D.C. and Chicago is that those particular cities have power and resources out of proportion to their actual size. D.C., being a federal entity, can draw on many of the resources of the federal government as a whole rather than just those of the city itself. Smilarly, Chicago has had somewhat of a stranglehold on the politics of the state of Illinois for decades due to the lopsided population of the state. Mayor Dailey is one of the most powerful figures not only in Chicago, but in Springfield as well and can thusly draw upon the resources of not only his own city, but the rest of the state as well. Other cities which are in similar circumstances would probably include New York and Boston. However, in states with more than one major metropolitan area like Florida, Texas, and California, the balance of political power is not so lopsided. The Mayor of Orlando is balanced somewhat by the Mayor of Miami, the Mayor of Dallas is balanced somewhat by the Mayor of Houston, and the Mayor of Los Angeles is balanced by the Mayors of San Francisco and San Diego. Ironically, some of California's more draconian laws may go the quietest as, given the current economic condition of the state, California simply may not be able to afford a plethora of costly legal battles. Should, for example, San Francisco be sued over gun laws, I can see Los Angeles and San Diego not wanting to give up badly needed resources to help SF fight. The next battles, most likely, will be no-issue probably in IL followed by may-issue most likely in CA or NY.