The McDonald Decision

peetzakilla said:
We "won" Heller.. how many handguns are in DC? A year later?
Click to expand...
According to NICS, 959 from November 30, 1998 - June 30, 2009. But keep in mind that DC residents could easily buy guns in Virginia (2,353,496) or Maryland (884,509) and they were trying to as soon as the ink on Heller was dry. Considering that handguns were completely banned in DC pre-Heller, I would think that the number of available gun stores would be very low. The DC Zoning Commission passed an emergency measure that allows gun stores, with some very strict guidelines, late in 2008, but even that could be rescinded by the City Council.
 
I am also cautiously optimistic that some jurisdictions may turn out to be more rational than Chicago and D.C. Some of the states that are currently "may issue" could easily be looking at the fine print in both Heller and McDonald and recognizing that "may issue" may not pass muster if/when challenged. Not every such jurisdiction is ruled by demagogues like Daley and Bloomie -- some of them may decide on their own initiative that it would make more sense to get with the program and make their permits "shall issue" rather than engage in lengthy (and costly) court battles they're virtually guaranteed to lose.

Hey ... a guy can hope, can't he?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun1.html?ref=opinion

This is a strange editorial in some senses. First, the Times denies the right to keep and bear arms for the citizen. However, since it is settled law (for now), the Times criticizes Chicago's new rules as they shift training and selling out of the city to the burbs. See:

Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns, but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago ordinance. Lawmakers there sensibly limited residents to one operable handgun per home, with a strict registration and permitting process. But residents are not allowed to buy a gun in the city. They must receive firearms training, but ranges are illegal in the city. Chicago lawmakers sloughed off on the suburbs the responsibility to regulate sales and training. As a result, more people will travel more miles to transport guns.

The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller. The District of Columbia passed a largely similar ordinance last year after its law was struck down by the court. But it permits sales at the few gun shops in the district, and a federal judge upheld that ordinance after it was challenged. It could stand as a model for other cities.
Click to expand...

Huh? Mixed messages or feeble attempts to maintain control?

But they get back on track! Old women can't defend themselves and should just call the law:

As flawed as the Chicago regulation is, the lawsuit challenging it is entirely over the top. It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that everyone needs a gun. “If an elderly widow lives in an unsafe neighborhood and asks her son to spend the night because she has recently received harassing phone calls,” the lawsuit complains, “the son may not bring his registered firearm with him to his mother’s home as an aid to the defense of himself and his mother.” Putting granny in the middle of a neighborhood firefight is preferable to having her simply call the police?
Click to expand...

So they can find chopped up Granny later? Call Chicago CSI!
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Mixed messages or feeble attempts to maintain control?
Click to expand...

In some respects, I see the direction in the editorial as realistic from the perspective of gun controllers. I suspect they are correct that Chicago's bans on gun shops and ranges will fall to equal-protection challenges. They seem to be saying the gun control movement should retreat just far enough to have a more defensible position and not give us easy targets.

Consider just the fees and costs aspects of the DC and Chicago laws. Both cities have built structures that effectively attempt to make guns too expensive to own. By going overboard, they tempt the courts to find the aggregate fees and costs to be an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of a right. Starting with more modest fees and costs would not present us with a good opportunity for such a result.
 
But the slippery slope runs both ways. We've seen state start with restrictive laws and then when the blood didn't flow on the streets, the laws and rules become less restrictive.

If in Chicago or DC, the legal owners who go through the process are not shown to be crazed loonies, then will there be pressure to lighten up?

It has happened in more gun friendly environs.

Would it happen here?
 
NYT seems upset Chicago passed a gun law that could easily be overturned and set precedent that they (gun control advocates) wouldn't like.

I don't see the powers that be in Chicago or NYC loosening up gun control laws no matter the actual results. Bloomberg and Daley really do hate guns or the idea of citizens/subjects with guns. Only the courts will remove gun laws in Chicago and NYC.
 
I don't see any mixed messages in that editorial at all. It's blatantly anti-gun from the first word to the last.

Granny doesn't need a gun. Call the police. One gun per household is "sensible". Let the police control it.

The message could not be clearer.
 
For decades, gun control advocates had the advantage of incrementally building on existing laws. The relative advantage in the courts shifted to us with Heller and McDonald. The question used to be, if A is not too much, why not B, C or D; now the question will be, if Z is too much, what justifies Y, X, or W?

The only way we could quickly lose our advantage would be if gun controllers retreated far enough to establish a solid foundation for building new case law. Luckily, the emotions of the gun control crowd won't let them back down in that way.
 
The mixed message is that suggesting the stores, etc. in Chicago itself is opening yourself to a viral attack and creeping gun-ism. :D

They could have suggested absolute disobedience. Imagine the same in NYC. There's only one range in Manhattan. With a similar law, there's enough interest that folks would go through the process and then might force a loosening. Or you can just be a pessimist and not try to push this a little farther, bit by bit.
 
From the NYT article:
Ms. McCarthy said the group drew its power from its money — it has donated more than $17.5 million to federal candidates, mostly Republicans, since 1989, and spent millions more in lobbying — and the fear of political retribution.
Click to expand...

That's only about $1.75M per year. In today's politics, while that's not something to sneeze at, I'm guessing there's bigger donors to politicians than the NRA on all sorts of issues. It's the votes that the politicians really worry about. Thus, the fear of political retribution is probably a bigger factor than the money. Keep in mind, if we have 4 million NRA members, how many of their wives, voting age children, friends, etc. who are not NRA members, vote in a similar fashion as the NRA members do? That is a significant voting block for pro gun rights issues.

The democrats finally realized this and it was spelled out by Howard Dean when he said the democrats can't just walk away from the guys who follow Nascar and sport NRA bumper stickers on their trucks. Those weren't his exact words, but close enough to make the point. They ran more pro gun rights candidates in red districts and won, giving them control of congress. That meant a defeat on many gun rights issues for the gun control and anti gun politicians in Washington, however. They don't like this situation very well, but it's easier to blame an agressive NRA and its money than their own party. Even President Obama understands the set up. He basically said that a new assault weapons ban was not politically in the cards at this time and told AG Eric Holder to back off on that issue.

I too liked how they used the GOA as a brickbat against the NRA. I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend at times. :D:D:D
 
The power of the NRA isn't so much it's money as it is the unified voting block. They can't do their mischief if they can't stay in office. I, for one would like to see a lot more gridlock in Washington. If they all just went home for a year or so, we could save trillions.
 
USAFNoDak said:
That's only about $1.75M per year. In today's politics, while that's not something to sneeze at, I'm guessing there's bigger donors to politicians than the NRA on all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's 20 1/2 years, so it's only $860,000 per year. Frankly, in todays world of Washington, that IS something to sneeze at. $860k is a pittance in DC. The power of the NRA is clearly not due to spending.
 
Peetzakilla:

Actually, that's 20 1/2 years, so it's only $860,000 per year. Frankly, in todays world of Washington, that IS something to sneeze at. $860k is a pittance in DC. The power of the NRA is clearly not due to spending.
Click to expand...

Oops. Brain cramp disorder. I must have been thinking about 99 when I did my math. And I'm an engineer on top of it. Boy, is my face red. :o

Yes, $860K is a pittance in comparison to the money spent in Washington by certain groups. It's the voting block the NRA represents that scares the undies off of the anti gun and pro-gun-control politicians. We should start calling them "public servants" again to help them come to grips with the fact that they are supposed to "serve" the public. They refer to themselves as "lawmakers" as this gives them a higher position on society since they "make" laws which control the rest of us, or at least attempt to control us.
 
Hello everyone, it's been awhile. In case you forgot I'm the "hand wringing federalist" who was warning of the dangers of incorporating the 2A. Turns out I'm not alone.

See this video at youtube.com "SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution".

Turns out some intellectual heavyweights (Dr. Kevin Gutzman, and Dr Tom Woods) are making the same arguments I was making, and they do it so much better than I was. Hate to post and run, but I am late for work.

Later,
Some_Dude
 
Turns out some intellectual heavyweights (Dr. Kevin Gutzman, and Dr Tom Woods) are making the same arguments I was making, and they do it so much better than I was.
Click to expand...

Putting aside the issue of how intellectual the two gentlemen who you feel share your opinion are, why don't you start a new thread for this if you want to actually have this discussion.

Your original thread on that topic was closed after you stopped responding by the second page and it wandered off down the old familiar path of whether the 14th Amendment was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states - which by the way, you never once acknowledged the question of how the 14th Amendment modified the traditional understanding of the relationship between the states and federal government - since that is invariably where any derivative of the argument you are making is going to go; maybe you should think about that and read some of those discussions here first?
 
Last edited:
B. Roberts...
Sorry for 'posting on the wrong thread'. The heading is The MacDonald Decision. In light of what the case has stirred up I thought this would be a good thread to chime in on. I was in a hurry last night, and in the future I will start a new thread, as opposed to jumping in on one. As for the question you posed, I will work on it and get back here as soon as I can.

Later,
Some_Dude
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top