Future legal cases after McDonald vs Chicago?

[mack59]

As we wait for the supreme court to decide McDonald in the spring and release their decision in the summer - I can't help but consider the possibilities for new legal cases regarding our second amendment rights - all predicated of course, (fingers crossed), on a ruling for incorporation and an outline of standards for scrutiny to be applied, (fingers crossed, lucky rabbits foot, ect... hoping for strict scrutiny).

Via Youtube I watched two speeches by Mr. Gura (lead counsel in Heller and now McDonald). He seems to focus on two areas for future litigation - one the removal of laws barring the bearing or carrying of arms for self defense, indicating that a state must either allow shall issue type ccw provisions or open carry and that states that do not - CA, HI, IL - will be up for lawsuits; and two, laws that ban cosmetic features or require special "safety" technology for guns to be legally sold or possessed.

But I also wonder about the wider/other prospects opened up by possible incorporation and would appreciate the thoughts of members of this forum, either on some of the following or on other areas I have not thought of or that they have hopes for changing.

In just Illinois I do not think the FOID card (Firearm Owners Identification Card) which is required to own or possess a gun in Illinois for state residents would survive - at least as presently constituted.

Illinois also being the only state that provides no legal provision for ccw or open carry for self-defense may find itself passing a ccw law against the desires of Chicago in order to prevent unlicensed ccw or open carry.

Nationally I wonder about the 1934 NFA, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1986 Hughes amendment.

I don't see the NFA act being fully overturned but I do wonder about the local law enforcement sign off requirement. I also wonder if the restrictions on surpressors will stand.

Probably under commerce clause I see most of what remains of 68 GCA remaining.

The Hughes amendment I hate with a passion, but I'm not sure how it would be challenged - especially since I believe that the supreme court will not recognize machine guns under the second amendment, (I wish it wasn't so but I don't see them going there).

The sporting purposes and ammuntion bans are problematic too, though I do believe that the sporting purpose ban/test will fall.

If I knew how, I would have put this up in a poll for votes on what you think will change and what won't.

I have to say that I really never thought that I would live to see the 2nd amendment recognized in any material way in my lifetime.

[ming]

I'm just hoping we're not counting our chickens before they are hatched re McDonald v. Chicago. Reading pro RKBA sites suggest the case is a slam dunk. Are there sites that are anti that are suggesting the complete opposite? I'd like to read their spin on it.

[KyJim]

I also hesitate in considering incorporation to be a done deal. However, the laws the OP mentioned are federal and the 2A is applicable. The court in Heller hinted very strongly that most of the existing federal gun laws would probably pass muster.

I'll also add that a lot will depend on the facts of the case. That was a big part of Heller and is a big part of the McDonald case. The worst thing that can happen is a bunch of silly challenges based on bad facts and ill-prepared lawyers. For example, challenging laws barring felons from owning firearms is a waste of time and does nothing to further the interests of gun owners.

[Tom Servo]

I have to say that I really never thought that I would live to see the 2nd amendment recognized in any material way in my lifetime.

Yep. Same here

I'm just hoping we're not counting our chickens before they are hatched re McDonald v. Chicago. Reading pro RKBA sites suggest the case is a slam dunk. Are there sites that are anti that are suggesting the complete opposite?

None. Even the briefs in support of Chicago seem to accept some kind of incorporation as a done deal. The big question is which kind.

For example, challenging laws barring felons from owning firearms is a waste of time and does nothing to further the interests of gun owners.

Check out US v. Skoien. There are violent felonies, and there are statutory ones. There are some pretty stupid laws that keep people from owning guns, and some of those need to be challenged.

Most likely, Illinois will be ground zero following a pro-2A decision. We'll see restrictions on ownership challenged first, such as state-level assault weapons bans and tax-based registrations.

From there, it's a hard game to call. But it'll be a fun one to watch.

[mack59]

I guess I should have clearly stated that incorporation does not impact federal laws - but the expected establishment of a level of scrutiny could/should indicate the viability of possible future challenges to some of the the federal statutes I mentioned.

I'm not really counting any chickens yet, but just as with Heller, I feel and am maintaining a positive attitude.

I haven't really seen any websites where the general or even a sizable minority thinks that incorporation will not happen - but it will only be decided by the court this spring and summer - the rest is hope and speculation.

Illinois is a state that prohibits ownership of fully automatic weapons and I don't know that that will change - given the dicta in Heller and the Gura's opinion on full auto - he doesn't think it is in the realm of the possible.

I think that judicially or politically down the road that surpressors may have a chance to become less restricted and more available.

I also believe that other weapons like swithblades - automatic knives stand a chance or becoming legal.

Waiting periods (Illlinois - 3 days handgun or 1 day rifle) will probably go by the wayside with an instant check already in place.

Non-violent felons may have an opportunity for reinstatement as this issue has/is already coming up - and Lautenburg may go bye bye - don't know how I forgot that one in my first post.

[vranasaurus]

I would think laws that permanently deprive misdemeanents of their RKBA will be challenged.

Any crime that causes one to permanently lose a civil right ought to be a felony.

Some states deprive certain misdemeanents of the RKBA for a certain number of years. Will this be OK?

Should non-violent felons be treated the same as vioent felons? The GCA 68 makes an exception for felons who committ certain white collar crimes does this go far enough?

If you let Felons vote do you have to let them own guns, serve on juries etc... Or can the state pick and choose which rights to restore and which not to?

If the state where you were convicted allows you to own guns by restoration or otherwise will other states have to recognize that?

[KyJim]

Check out US v. Skoien. There are violent felonies, and there are statutory ones. There are some pretty stupid laws that keep people from owning guns, and some of those need to be challenged.

That was a msidemeanor. Totally different than a felony. That's one of the punishments of being a felon, you lose certain civil rights. If you go back and read Heller, you'll see that it was commonly accepted that the right to keep arms never applied to felons. My concern is that challenging certain handgun laws will lead to a body of "bad" case law for opponents of the 2A to draw upon in closer cases.

[Yellowfin]

NFA will be challenged in parts, like SBRs and suppressors for which there is absolutely no rational reason to treat them the way they're treated. The Hughes Amendment will definitely be struck down, maybe in as little as 5 years. Definitely IL's FOID card and NYC's draconian long gun licensing are prime lawsuit material. Basically it'll be a matter of going after the low hanging fruit first, then proceed to the stuff that's related to those lawsuits, then go after the hard stuff.

The two big things we need to do are public education and fund raising. We need the public to want the laws struck down so we get as many people as possible supporting us, and we need to chip in bits here and there to keep the machine on our side rolling. It absolutely SUCKS that we have to pay to fight for our liberty while the other side fights against us for free thanks to the LCAV. Oh, and we need to make it a BIG priority to put the LCAV out of existence by educating the public on what they are and boycotting their law firms.