July 3, 2010, 12:04 AM | #176 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I hate to be nit-picky, but there is STILL no firm standard. The ruling may indicate that the 2nd should be considered at an equal level as other fundamental rights, but they never actually agreed upon a standard of review. We certainly know some justices profess to "respecting" the 2nd, but would happily apply something like "rational basis" when reviewing infringements to the RTKBA (and maybe even call it "intermediate scrutiny.")
On a different line, Does anyone see anything in Heller and/or McDonald that could be used against the new Chicago ordinance? |
July 3, 2010, 12:22 AM | #177 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
Right now I think that the best thing that "gun people" could do would be to confront the activities of the Chicago council as being racist, besides transparently unconstitutional.
Which will need publicity.
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! |
July 3, 2010, 10:19 AM | #178 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
It's easy to say they are racist or unconstitutional in a post but I would ask for a specific as to why.
I've said that the locale rationale is racist. Thus, I'd agree that pointing out that this rationale was to deprive people of color the right to defend themselves. Also, we are stuck with reasonable restrictions and the SCOTUS has the opinion that counts. Chicago now will allow you a gun at home for self-defense (SCOTUS likes home defense). It has a test but TX and quite a few states have concealed carry tests - so is that an unreasonable restriction? Unless we go back to the argument that any restrictions are unconstitutional, it would be hard to argue that Chicago's are in violation of the SCOTUS ruling. The remedy is legislative. This would take quite a bit of time. TX - a gun friendly state can't get off the dime on parking lot guns because of business interests blocking it and getting their legislative buddies to keep the bill from a vote.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 3, 2010, 12:11 PM | #179 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
I think part of it is a matter of public relations and shocking media into actually thinking - I don't think most of them are malevolent - they're just LAZY.
We need to send out a picture of Otis, with the caption (and story around it...) "Black Man Victim of Chicago Gun Laws."
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! |
July 3, 2010, 12:31 PM | #180 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I recall actually seeing that point made on some nightly news - could have been Diane Sawyer. The point was made that an elderly African-American wanted to defend himself.
Thomas made the point of laws being used to deprive blacks of the ability to defend themselves against racists and government supported racists. However, I think the left is paternalistic towards people of color and would try to disarm all of them for their own good. However, this paternalism is covering a fear of people of color. Complicated, isn't it? I agree that I would like to see someone call out a left wing anti on the racist view of depriving people of color. However, some of the classic gun world probably have their own racial issues and this doesn't appeal to them. I might be skirting our rules when I say this and after to delete myself but that's my read of the research on guns and some attached attitudes from some sections of the gun world. Sigh -
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 3, 2010, 09:15 PM | #181 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2, 2007
Posts: 324
|
Now chicago will continue its ban by having convoluted expensive restrictions same as DC. Looks like it to me. Reasonable restrictions?
|
July 3, 2010, 10:22 PM | #182 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Google Palmer v. D.C.
If Sir Gura wins here, it will set some fine precedence at what type of regulations are permissible. There is a plan. It is being fought in a wholly systematic manor. |
July 3, 2010, 10:53 PM | #183 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Yes, Gura talks about the second amendment in treatment much like the first amendment - their are limits to free speech and the freedom to worship - but no agent or agency of government can ban the right to speak one's opinion or to publish one's thoughts or to limit one's church attendance to once a month. I love Gura's comment - "In the glass-two-drops-full department, opponents of the right to arms find refuge in statements recalling that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” We can all breathe easier knowing that airport metal detectors are going nowhere."
You can find his full take on the RKBA and McDonald here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mc...ond-amendment/ |
July 3, 2010, 11:44 PM | #184 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 4, 2010, 02:09 AM | #185 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2, 2007
Posts: 324
|
Baby Steps
Baby steps are frustrating but thats how we got here. It will take baby steps to correct the current regulations. The control camp has realy made alot of changes over the years. How much can be rolled back is the question. Still very frustrating that it has taken so long for a couple of real wins.
Last edited by grey sky; July 4, 2010 at 02:15 AM. Reason: spelling |
July 4, 2010, 11:47 AM | #186 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Edited the Heller 2 entry
Has it really taken so long?
Parker, et al. v. D.C. was filed in February of 2003. It morphed into Heller and was decided by the SCOTUS in 2008. That was only 5 years. McDonald was filed and the 2A incorporated in 2 years. Chicago changed their laws before the ink was even dry on that decision! Contrast that with Nordyke v. King, which was filed in 1999 and was pretty much a dead case until Parker was decided (by the D.C. Circuit) in 2007. While we are waiting for the en banc Nordyke case to resume (which may help to define the "sensitive places" issue), the following cases have been filed:
Of course, there's Heller II (Stephen Halbrook, NRA), currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Newly filed case: State Ammunition v. Lindley Challenge of AB962 (CA), CA Handgun Ammunition Regulations violates Commerce Clause, June 2010. Did I mention the case in North Carolina that the SAF and Alan Gura filed, immediately after the McDonald decision was presented? Things moving too slow, huh? |
July 4, 2010, 01:52 PM | #187 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
The tide of public opinion and resulting relaxation of restrictions has only turned in our favor in the last 25 years.
After two centuries of increasing infringement on the RKBA, the progress in the last decade really looks pretty stunning. |
|
July 4, 2010, 02:35 PM | #188 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/images/righ...ry-history.gif |
|
July 4, 2010, 09:12 PM | #189 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2, 2007
Posts: 324
|
That helps thanks
|
July 4, 2010, 10:02 PM | #190 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
|
|
July 4, 2010, 10:24 PM | #191 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
That, to me, says that McDonald both affirms and applies to the states a requirement that the People must be allowed not only to keep a firearm in their home, but to carry one when outside of the home. Chicago's new ordinance does not provide for that, and for that reason I believe it will have to be ruled unconstitutional. |
|
July 6, 2010, 12:04 PM | #192 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the population to which you refer feels sufficiently disenfranchised that they would find the discriminatory history of restrictions compelling. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
July 7, 2010, 03:20 PM | #193 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Tom Servo:
Quote:
I think the mindset of most americans, in light of both Heller and McDonald, is that the USSC has decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and the states and local governments must also respect that, even if the USSC did not specifically state that the right was "fundamental". We may have won that position based upon public perception, right or wrong from a purely legal perspective. I tend to smile when such things occur.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
July 7, 2010, 04:22 PM | #194 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||||
July 7, 2010, 07:23 PM | #195 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
First, I would caution anyone from taking anything from the syllabus to heart. It is written by one of the clerks and is not binding.
Having made that observation, let's look at the below wording, from the first paragraph of Justice Alito's decision. I have marked up the relevant parts: Quote:
Any legal challenge to that purpose will attach strict scrutiny. The further from that purpose we travel, scrutiny will become less strict. |
|
July 7, 2010, 08:10 PM | #196 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
If not, what is to stop the antis from banning ever weapon that is not SD oriented at it's core? Seems like virtually every weapon except handguns would be fair game.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 7, 2010, 09:07 PM | #197 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||||
July 7, 2010, 10:28 PM | #198 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Peetza, banning an entire class of firearms "in common use" would violate Heller.
It wouldn't be too hard to make the argument that a subclass, say AR-15's (and its many clones), are in fact, in common use. On the other hand, the anti's will have to make the argument that literally millions of AR-15's, held by the public, constitute an unusual and dangerous weapon. I wish them good luck with that. Tom, just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page. Quoting from a syllabus allows error to creep into our analysis. |
July 7, 2010, 11:02 PM | #199 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
We know Nordyke was on hold pending the McDonald decision, and I believe Skoien is as well. The "Skoien Test" could become precedent if the case is reheard in the light of this decision. If self-defense is now the "core" of the 2nd Amendment, then challenges to carry-licensing restrictions could stand a chance.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 8, 2010, 01:02 PM | #200 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Technically, there would not be any real "ban".
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
|
|