The McDonald Decision
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
rwilson452
New member
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?
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?
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:
Alito did a great job with what he had, and I enjoyed seeing him rip into Chicago's arguments:
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.
big_bad_kitty
New member
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!
mapsjanhere
New member
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.
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.
Wildalaska
Moderator
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
At the risk ofhaving my post AGAIN I will repeat the obvious that so many here refuse to acknowledge.
1) Some politicians are very much against gun rights.
2) They tend to appoint and confirm judges that are very much against gun rights.
3) MacDonald was a victory for gun owners and anyone that views the constitution with an original intent viewpoint
4) our victory was by just one vote, that is the narrowest of possible margins
5) Unless we wish to see this decision overturned in the future, we need to do what we can to ensure that the makeup of the court doesn't change with anti gun appointments.
This ia a basic observation about how this decision came to be and how we can keep it from being reversed. Why should my post be deleted for making such elementary observations about the inherent legal process?
1) Some politicians are very much against gun rights.
2) They tend to appoint and confirm judges that are very much against gun rights.
3) MacDonald was a victory for gun owners and anyone that views the constitution with an original intent viewpoint
4) our victory was by just one vote, that is the narrowest of possible margins
5) Unless we wish to see this decision overturned in the future, we need to do what we can to ensure that the makeup of the court doesn't change with anti gun appointments.
This ia a basic observation about how this decision came to be and how we can keep it from being reversed. Why should my post be deleted for making such elementary observations about the inherent legal process?
NJgunowner
New member
I guess nothing will ever scare me then. I expected this vote to be based on "party lines". Your average person is only interested in the bill of rights or constitution when it personally benefits their belief system... Then again isn't that the same with everyone?
I'm sure there are people in the military that don't like the whole Freedom of the press thing, feeling it could be a security risk or just inconvenient.
I'm sure the the 5th amendment annoys the crap out of police, judges, and prosecutors.
In a perfect world everyone would follow and uphold the bill of rights and that's that... but we are all individuals with different view points.
Now the funny thing is my parents lean heavily liberal, but even my mother said "who cares if they want to own guns? It's in the constitution, so let them!"
I'm sure there are people in the military that don't like the whole Freedom of the press thing, feeling it could be a security risk or just inconvenient.
I'm sure the the 5th amendment annoys the crap out of police, judges, and prosecutors.
In a perfect world everyone would follow and uphold the bill of rights and that's that... but we are all individuals with different view points.
Now the funny thing is my parents lean heavily liberal, but even my mother said "who cares if they want to own guns? It's in the constitution, so let them!"
What Justice Scalia wrote in this opinion to answer Stevens' dissent is priceless.
Justice Scalia is anything but diplomatic with the out-going Justice Stevens. Scalia tears Stevens' dissent apart piece by piece. Many times Scalia demonstrates that Stevens wants to impose Stevens' subjective values for the democratic method or for historical evidence.
I hope that Scalia has many more years on the bench.
Justice Scalia is anything but diplomatic with the out-going Justice Stevens. Scalia tears Stevens' dissent apart piece by piece. Many times Scalia demonstrates that Stevens wants to impose Stevens' subjective values for the democratic method or for historical evidence.
I hope that Scalia has many more years on the bench.
From reading the decision it appears to me that AW bans, may issue laws, and prohibitions on all legal carry - i.e. bans on both shall issue and open carry will be unconstitutional.
The decision is pretty specific as it identifies as constitutional bans on felons, bans on mentally ill, and bans on weapons in govt buildings, sensitive areas, and in schools as constitutional. It also indicates that some laws regulating what weapon may be carried and where and when they may be carried may be constitutional. Sounds like total bans on carry may be prohitbited but most shall issue ccw and/or open carry regulations are okay as practiced by most shall issue states.
Thus may issue states will have to adopt shall issue or open carry - such as California or Hawaii. And machine guns will probably continue to be highly regulated. So no you probably won't be able to take a machine gun into your kids school or the capital dome in DC for purposes of self-defense.
The decision is pretty specific as it identifies as constitutional bans on felons, bans on mentally ill, and bans on weapons in govt buildings, sensitive areas, and in schools as constitutional. It also indicates that some laws regulating what weapon may be carried and where and when they may be carried may be constitutional. Sounds like total bans on carry may be prohitbited but most shall issue ccw and/or open carry regulations are okay as practiced by most shall issue states.
Thus may issue states will have to adopt shall issue or open carry - such as California or Hawaii. And machine guns will probably continue to be highly regulated. So no you probably won't be able to take a machine gun into your kids school or the capital dome in DC for purposes of self-defense.
Daugherty16
New member
USSOC website is extremely slow. 80 million gun owners are trying to log on!
will be reading these briefs asap. sounds like their debate prior to the decision was rather vigorous, ya think?
will be reading these briefs asap. sounds like their debate prior to the decision was rather vigorous, ya think?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Absolute incorrect. Even under the most careful liberal reading of the decsion, all of the foregoing would be constituional, especially an AWB that is purely cosmetic, as the last one was.
WildperhapsweshouldstartanotherthreadAlaska ™
vranasaurus
New member
The lower courts decided the case by saying that the second amendment doesn't apply to state and local government.
They never really evaluated the chicago law with regard to the second amendment.
The issue of wehtehr or not the chicago law violated the second amendment was not before the supreme court. They only decided the issue of incorporation.
Well we shall see:
The court has taken rational basis off the table - given their statement that the potential negative impact of a right cannot be reason to restrict it said as part of their destruction of Breyers - proposed balancing test. That leaves only intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Also the court has again affirmed that the second amendment is a "fundamental right" like other fundamental rights.
Even under intermediate scrutiny the may issue laws run afoul of equal protection. A cosmetic AW ban has no logical basis and both intermediate and strict scrutiny require a level of logic and real justifiable reason. Complete bans on both open and concealed carry would effectively write the word "bear" out of the amendment - and I don't see the court suddenly changing direction to go that way.
Given the courts empahsis on "common use" and self-defense it is probable that will uphold restrictions on (functionally different) machine guns not on mere cosmetics.
The court has taken rational basis off the table - given their statement that the potential negative impact of a right cannot be reason to restrict it said as part of their destruction of Breyers - proposed balancing test. That leaves only intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Also the court has again affirmed that the second amendment is a "fundamental right" like other fundamental rights.
Even under intermediate scrutiny the may issue laws run afoul of equal protection. A cosmetic AW ban has no logical basis and both intermediate and strict scrutiny require a level of logic and real justifiable reason. Complete bans on both open and concealed carry would effectively write the word "bear" out of the amendment - and I don't see the court suddenly changing direction to go that way.
Given the courts empahsis on "common use" and self-defense it is probable that will uphold restrictions on (functionally different) machine guns not on mere cosmetics.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I have already started another thread so wont answer your contentions, but would note you cant use dicta to necessarily predict a decision on constituionality
WildbangingawayhereAlaska ™
Wildalaska has it right: subsequent battles are going to take place at the ballot box. Specifically, the legislature.
As it stands now, I can read the current state of things as follows:
Blanket bans on handguns in the home are unconstitutional.
Laws regulating, restricting or outlawing carry outside the home are constitutional.
Laws banning specific brands, types or actions (ie, semiautomatic) are still constitutional, so long as some type of handgun is allowed.
Taxes on exercise of the 2nd Amendment right are constitutional. So long as they don't clearly impede the "core right" of self-defense, they'll stand. This includes taxing ammunition, shooting ranges, licensing and hunting grounds. I don't see any challenge to the NFA being successful.
As with Heller, we got a somewhat narrow reading, protecting one specific thing, with leeway left for "reasonable" restrictions.
There will be subsequent lawsuits, but the bulk of the work needs to be done in the legislature.
As it stands now, I can read the current state of things as follows:
Blanket bans on handguns in the home are unconstitutional.
Laws regulating, restricting or outlawing carry outside the home are constitutional.
Laws banning specific brands, types or actions (ie, semiautomatic) are still constitutional, so long as some type of handgun is allowed.
Taxes on exercise of the 2nd Amendment right are constitutional. So long as they don't clearly impede the "core right" of self-defense, they'll stand. This includes taxing ammunition, shooting ranges, licensing and hunting grounds. I don't see any challenge to the NFA being successful.
As with Heller, we got a somewhat narrow reading, protecting one specific thing, with leeway left for "reasonable" restrictions.
There will be subsequent lawsuits, but the bulk of the work needs to be done in the legislature.