The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2010, 10:38 AM   #26
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,242
Hey folks?

Let's keep the "creative name calling" of our opponents to a minimum, OK?

As in none?

OK?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:56 AM   #27
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
It seems to me Breyer's dissent rehashes much of the argument in the Heller dissent.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 11:58 AM   #28
FiveForSure
Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 95
Any ideas yet on whether or not this ruling is likely to have an effect on Massachusetts gun laws?
FiveForSure is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 12:02 PM   #29
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,372
Interesting read (in as far as you can call 200 pages in an hour a read). Looks like the decision is really 4-1-1-3. Breyer is trying to overturn Heller, Stephens can live with Heller but doesn't see handguns as necessary (sounds like the argument why FA weapons can be banned); Thomas disagrees with the logic of the majority but "concurs in judgement", a common scheme in the SCOTUS that always rubs me wrong.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 12:05 PM   #30
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,372
Five, I think a lot of "strict" states will just have to sharpen their procedures to eliminate "may" type rules. As in "if you follow our tedious process to the letter and meet all requirements, you will get a gun". My feeling is that "concurrence of the local police chief" type rules will be replaced by strict but audit-able background checks.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 12:19 PM   #31
ursavus.elemensis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2007
Location: southcentral/southeastern PA
Posts: 375
The ruling is charming, and all that, but in Pennsylvania our State Constitution has long recognized that our rights come from God (Article 1, section 1) and that we have the right to self defense (Article 1, section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned").

Looking back in history, that recognition of our right to self defense comes from the backlash against the Quakers who had controlled the State legislature for many decades but were ultimately thrown out of power forever when they refused to appropriate money to defend the colony from attacks by the Indians. The Quakers never regained power in PA politics. Yeah, the anti-gun groups were active, even in the early 1700's.
__________________
"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
-The Declaration of Independence
ursavus.elemensis is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 12:54 PM   #32
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
The ruling is charming, and all that, but in Pennsylvania our State Constitution has long recognized that our rights come from God
You're kidding yourself. Curious about your statement, I went to the Brady site to check PA laws, and find them extremely onerous. It's the "Boil the frog slowly" method where once the laws are in place you just take them as a given. You shouldn't be happy about these restrictions and useless bureaucratic hurdles. This ruling will give citizens in states like PA some help in getting rid of these ridiculous rules.

The fight isn't over. We just got some ammunition to continue the fight.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/PA/
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 12:57 PM   #33
Master Blaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: One of the original 13 Colonies
Posts: 2,027
Sometimes I think that the main role of the Supreme court isn't to rule decisively but to raise new questions that generate more court cases and most Important of all lots and lots of legal fees for the swarm of lawyers their rulings seem to attract. :barf:

So now there will be hundreds of legal cases filed, and millions in legal fees generated, to determine exactly what the ruling means.
__________________
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between a poop sandwich, and a poop Sandwich with mustard.

Last edited by Master Blaster; June 28, 2010 at 01:37 PM.
Master Blaster is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:12 PM   #34
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,095
I guess that's great for Chicago, but realistically they'll just adopt the NJ method of gun control instead. Start off with lots of paperwork, then move on to a huge wait for background checks, then wait around some more for some administrative type to get it signed off on, then they'll adopt the 1 handgun per month like NJ.

You'll get the gun, but you'll wait 3 months for it

The supreme court won't touch them for it either since they never actually say you can't have a gun unless you fail the background check bs.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:15 PM   #35
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
I'll second that kodiakbeer.

Florida's laws are less restrictive than Pennsylvania's. Someone could buy a handgun at garage sale, load it and put in his glove box, for example. But there's still room for improvement. I'd like to see our state's laws rolled back further.

What's more I want to see those rights extended across state lines. I refuse to visit and spend money in a state/city that does not recognize my God-given rights. For right now principle keeps me in the South and Midwest. There's still hope that someday I can have a New York style pizza in New York or a Chicago style pizza in Chicago, with a 38 in my pocket.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:18 PM   #36
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
I guess that's great for Chicago, but realistically they'll just adopt the NJ method of gun control instead. Start off with lots of paperwork, then move on to a huge wait for background checks, then wait around some more for some administrative type to get it signed off on, then they'll adopt the 1 handgun per month like NJ.
Yes, it's going to suck, but it's better than what they have now. It's a small step in the right direction. It took decades to roll back the rights of Chicagoans, and it will be decades before they're fully restored.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:22 PM   #37
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Many states already incorporate the 2nd in their State Constitutions. However they still have restrictions on guns. Most of the change is going to come through action in State legislatures. Just the worst like Chicago and DC total bans are automatically gone.
wally626 is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:24 PM   #38
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
A state preemption law would restore the rights much faster, and there's lots of precedence for that. I'm thinking this next election cycle may be the tipping point in Chicago and we may finally see state preemption and concealed carry on the books in a very few years.
tet4 is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:25 PM   #39
skoro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,779
The Supremes...

Quote:
Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers.
Seems to me that a LOT of SC cases are decided by 5-4 votes. And that makes sense when you think about it. The issues have to be pretty controversial and divisive in the first place or else they'd never make it up to that level.

Thank goodness this one was decided the right way. Too many go against us citizens and in favor of "special interests."
skoro is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:49 PM   #40
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Gotta give Brady people credit... They certainly have wonderful imaginations when it comes to what is actually happening nationwide...
You'd think Baghdad Bob was writing their talking points. If nothing else this illustrates that the enemies of freedom aren't going to let a little ink on paper deter them from their obsession- a disarmed America.

The importance of your vote, for the Office of President, is also aptly illustrated by the fine margin by which precious freedom was affirmed.

Kodus to the five that got it right.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:49 PM   #41
Mawetta
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2010
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 90
How did Soto vote? I really want to know
Mawetta is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 01:58 PM   #42
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Remanding this back the the 7th district Court, I understand this to mean they are turning this back over to them, but to do what?

I am no lawyer so please do explain..... What does this mean to us?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:02 PM   #43
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The remand is to the District Court where the actual laws will be on trial. That was never done.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:12 PM   #44
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
So If I understand you correctly, the SCOTUS has ruled we have these rights but sent it back to the 7th Dist. Court to have their ruling applied to the law?

It seems strange..... Why wouldnt the Supreme Court of the land just decide it and be done with it? Any thoughts?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:13 PM   #45
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,973
Quote:
Remanding this back the the 7th district Court, I understand this to mean they are turning this back over to them, but to do what?

I am no lawyer so please do explain..... What does this mean to us?
As I understand it, it is remanded for the lower court to conform its judgment to the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Skans is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:14 PM   #46
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,364
self defense core to the 2nd

If self defense is core to the 2nd. Now that the 2nd applies to the states especially NY. NYS doesn't allow of non residents to bring a pistol into the state except under rare conditions. NY law requires a NY permit to be in possession and doesn't allow for the issue of said permits to non NY residents. So could it be said that those laws are unconstitutional in that it doesn't allow non residents the right of self defense with a pistol?
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:18 PM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
How did Soto vote? I really want to know
With Breyer, who swears that Heller didn't happen. I'm very disappointed with her.

Slaughterhouse still stands, and if anything, has been given a few more years of life by this case. I'm ecstatic that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated, but like Justice Thomas, I'm a little disappointed in the mechanism used:

Quote:
The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only “process” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. Moreover, this fiction is a particularly dangerous one. The one theme that links the Court’s substantive due process precedents together is their lack of a guiding principle to distinguish “fundamental” rights that warrant protection from nonfundamental rights that do not. (Thomas concurrence, p. 7)
Alito did a great job with what he had, and I enjoyed seeing him rip into Chicago's arguments:

Quote:
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.

Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by gone era. (p. 33)
I'd hoped for a revolution, but we got an incremental improvement. I'm okay with that, just not ecstatic.

In other news, the Brady Campaign is freaking out. I actually got a very strident email from them before the decision had been read. Unlike their post-Heller pep talk, there's nothing arrogant or jubilant. Nothing about this being a "victory for common-sense gun laws," just doom, gloom and pleas for money.

Expect Nordyke v. King and Peña v. Cid to grow new legs in the wake of this, and expect a wave of challenges to various local ordinances and regulations in the coming months.

2011's going to be an interesting year for us.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:42 PM   #48
big_bad_kitty
Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Posts: 72
5/4 is troubling! The incorporation of the Bill of Rights to individuals should be a 9/0 vote even by the liberals. If this does not scare the h*** out of you nothing ever will. To think we as a nation have had our young men go to war and fight for the very thing this ignorant bunch of )(&*T^%$Q@#$%^&^%(*&* have just cast four votes against! I never in my life thought I would live to see this. Somebody better get up off their arses and make a showing at the ballot boxes or what is left will be gone before you know it!
__________________
NRA Endowment Life Member - TX Concealed Handgun Instructor
Experience - What you get when you don't get what you wanted!
texasconcealedhandguninstructor.com
big_bad_kitty is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:51 PM   #49
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,372
If you look at the history of McDonalds, both the district and the circuit said that according to Heller the ban should be dead, but precedent means they have to uphold it since the SCOTUS did not incorporate it.
Now the matter will come back down to the district judge, and the district judge, based on new SCOTUS precedent, will decide in favor of McDonalds.
The SCOTUS can affirm or reject a district court decision, but it cannot issue a judgment. That is the privilege of the district court, even if the higher courts tell them what to decide.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 02:52 PM   #50
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Why wouldnt the Supreme Court of the land just decide it and be done with it? Any thoughts?
Because the lower court just ruled on a point of then exisiting law without having fact finding if I understand it correctly

WildicalledthisoneyearsagoAlaska ™

PS....I read the decision and under it, IMHO a cosmetic AWB would be constitutional, as are restrictions on CCW and caliber. Furthermore, registration, 4473s, dealer licensing, CCW laws are also constitutional. The battle is still at the ballot box
Wildalaska is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14005 seconds with 7 queries