Which Gun Laws do you think are susceptible to constitutional attack and why?

[Musketeer]

Hmm... laws that are endangerred by the new ruling...

First we must acknowledge that the court did not say laws regulating the 2A could not be enacted. That being the case any law which has as a purpose the prevention of criminals (violent felons at the minimum) and those who are mentally ill will not be in peril so long as they allow the law abiding citizen to own a firearm.

Laws that make it impossible for one to own a whole classification of firearms (all handguns, all shotguns, all rifles) are in immediate peril. The handgun ban in suburban Chicago (can't remember the town) is one in particular.

Laws that set "unreasonable" (as determined by a court) hurdles, either through time or money, on being able to own a firearm are at lesser peril but still open to attack. The restrictions on firearms and enormous hurdles present in places like NYC fall into this category.

Laws that make the issuance of carry permits discretionary in states like NY and NJ are also endangerred. By having a permit system the state acknowledges a citizen can carry (bear) a firearm but the discretionary nature in which they are issued runs contrary to that. Either the right exists or it does not but it must be uniform to all law abiding citizens.

Carry permits in general are not about to get overturned and the nation become total CCW/open carry friendly becasue the court did not say regulation of the 2A was not allowed.

 

[Sam Adams]

I think that the FOPA ban on registration of post-'86 full autos is next to be repealed, assuming that we win on Parker. That ban is exactly what's going on in DC - if you didn't have a gun prior to X date, you can't get a new one.

Further, under Miller a full auto M-4 or M-16 - which is explicitly a militia weapon since it is THE primary weapon of our infantrymen - would be protected. Remember, Miller lost because there was no "judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun had any reasonable relationship to the efficiency or effectiveness of the militia (which means that the evidence wasn't presented, not that such a weapon failed to meet the test). Have no doubt that there would be judicial notice of the status of M-4s and M-16s (and possibly other FAs used by various units in the military or police/National Guard units around the nation).

PPGMD said:

I highly doubt that the NFA would be repealed, it's a regulation, no outright bans.

I think that you are wrong. You see, the fed.gov has long argued that the NFA is constitutional because it was a taxing scheme and not a regulatory scheme or ban. Well, guess what? That argument was torn to shreds by the FOPA ban - basically, the law forbids - FORBIDS - BATF (i.e. the US Treasury at the time) from collecting the $200 paid for the tax stamp needed to own a post-'86 FA. Think: how can you have a valid tax that the government CANNOT collect? IOW, since 1986, the NFA has ONLY been about banning ownership of a class of guns, completely contrary to what the government had argued for roughly 50 years before that time.

Buh, bye '34 NFA, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I'd also say that we have a good shot at getting the "sporting use" language tossed from the '68 GCA. It bans whole classes of weapons from being imported, but those who had/have them didn't/don't have to surrender them. Yet another case exactly like the DC ban.

I think that there's a decent shot at getting the 2nd applied to the states via incorporating it with the 14th Amendment. Parker just said that the 2nd protects a "fundamental" right. Guess what? Protecting fundamental rights from states that don't respect them is EXACTLY what the 14th was designed to do.