And it's being very well managed. You'll notice that each case is meticulously set up to focus on one issue, and each issue then leads to the next case and the next issue.Antipitas said:...There is a plan. It is being fought in a wholly systematic manor.
grey sky said:Still very frustrating that it has taken so long for a couple of real wins.
Indeed:In the mid-1980s, only a handful of states had no requirements or shall-issue permitting for concealed carry; today, that relationship is exactly the opposite.
Antipitas said:Newly filed case: State Ammunition v. Lindley Challenge of AB962 (CA), CA Handgun Ammunition Regulations violates Commerce Clause, June 2010.
I don't think Chicagoans are stuck. The new ordinance only allows for "keeping" a firearm in the home. The 2nd Amendment guarantees "A" right (singular) to keep AND bear arms. Heller, in particular, addressed only the "keep" portion because that's what the case was about -- what Heller asked for was to be allowed to keep a firearm in his home. Mr. McDonald basically asked for the same thing, but in McDonald I think Justice Alito was well aware (from the way Washington, DC, tried to cheery pick the Heller decision to basically ignore the intent of the court) that Chicago would do their best to do an end run, so in his opinion he noted that "the" right to "keep and bear" arms IS (singular, not "are," plural) "A" fundamental right.Glenn E. Meyer said: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.
...the progress in the last decade really looks pretty stunning.
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 -
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.")
Just a small correction: the Court did not rule that the RKBA was "fundamental."
It's true that he never says, "the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental," but it's clear enough. From the syllabus alone:He talks about the paladium of liberties being the right to keep and bear arms. He talks about the common laws. He waltzes entirely around the RKBA being a fundamental right, even if he doesn't explicity say that in his opinion.
This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here.
A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty.
Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental.
The [Heller] Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller (citation omitted), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. .... We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
Antipitas said:No one can read the above and come away with anything less than that the 2A is a fundamental right, as regards the core purpose of the right. Therefore, the core purpose, as stated above, is that of self-defense.
Any legal challenge to that purpose will attach strict scrutiny. The further from that purpose we travel, scrutiny will become less strict.
Very true, but it's all over the decision. On page 19,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.
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty
Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. pp. 44-45
Any legal challenge to that purpose will attach strict scrutiny. The further from that purpose we travel, scrutiny will become less strict.
So does caffeine, and lots of it. Darn Starbuck's instant...Quoting from a syllabus allows error to creep into our analysis.
Antipitas said: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.