The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Bartholomew Roberts · April 27, 2009, 09:04 AM

OK, we have incorporation - and in a Circuit with a lot of obscenely irrational gun laws even. The question is where to now?

Jim March has outlined an interesting proposition with regard to carry laws that might bring California into the majority of U.S. states that have shall issue laws.

On the other hand, I know that a lot of people would like to go after the California AWB since it is particularly restrictive. The question to me is how do you go after the California AWB? It seems to me that having that fight in the 9th Circuit is almost a guarantee that such bans will be found as a "reasonable restriction" by either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court if you come after it right out of the gate without some stronger precedent to back your argument.

Much like the civil rights battles was won by putting one tiny block or clear rule of law on top of another, I think the issue of AWBs has to be handled the same way. So what are the issues that need to be established to take down an AWB?

If you were going to build an irrefutable chain of logic starting from areas of least disagreement and progress to 'so-called "assault weapons" are protected by the Second Amendment' what would that chain look like?

April 27, 2009, 09:04 AM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	What is next after Nordyke? OK, we have incorporation - and in a Circuit with a lot of obscenely irrational gun laws even. The question is where to now? Jim March has outlined an interesting proposition with regard to carry laws that might bring California into the majority of U.S. states that have shall issue laws. On the other hand, I know that a lot of people would like to go after the California AWB since it is particularly restrictive. The question to me is how do you go after the California AWB? It seems to me that having that fight in the 9th Circuit is almost a guarantee that such bans will be found as a "reasonable restriction" by either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court if you come after it right out of the gate without some stronger precedent to back your argument. Much like the civil rights battles was won by putting one tiny block or clear rule of law on top of another, I think the issue of AWBs has to be handled the same way. So what are the issues that need to be established to take down an AWB? If you were going to build an irrefutable chain of logic starting from areas of least disagreement and progress to 'so-called "assault weapons" are protected by the Second Amendment' what would that chain look like?