Circuit Court of Appeals Decisons Post McDonald/Chicago

imported post

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER:

Much has been discussed about the upcoming case to be argued on March 2, 2010.

The McDonald/Chicago case will decide if the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states and we all believe that there is a good chance that it will.

The questions we need to ask is WHAT NEXT?

Those that follow Federal Litigation on firearms know most of the cases that are discussed regularly here and on other Internet sites. (McDonald, Palmer, Nordyke , Sykes etc.)

But exactly howthese cases may effect the future rights of everyday citizens to sell, purchase, transfer, possess, store, transport or carry are yet to be litigated or reviewed in depth with Second Amendment protections considered.

I would like to predict here and now that the flood gates regardingall of these topics will be opened for challenge if the Supreme Courtrules that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the stateregardless of the reason or reasons why they do so.

Regardless of what happens, reasonable regulation of firearms will never be ruled unconstitutional and most of the future postMcDonald/Chicago cases will be filed to determine"REASONABLENESS"

On September 17th 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard two combined cases out of Connecticut, they are referred to as the Kuck and Goldberg cases.

Kuck is: M. PETER KUCK, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Danaher

Goldberg is:JAMES F. GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Danaher

Goldberg also has another Federal case against the Town of Glastonbury, CT and their Police Department which is well into the discover phase of the litigation.

These two cases which have been flying under the discussion radar, (having already beenargued beforethe Second Circuit Court of Appeals), and may becomethefirst two Federal Appellate Court cases rendered and released post McDonald/Chicago and may begin the legal process ofclarifying the rights of gun owners in the future.

If anyone knows of anypending or new Federal Cases other thanthose mentioned, please postinformation with case names and the issues being addressed.

imported post

I keep my hopes up, but I realize that Mcdonald/Chicago may fail. As much as I contemplate future positive legislation, I have to imagine what the fallback plan is should March 2nd go awry.

I also would consider your case, Ed, for nomination as a new Federal case that will have significant impact on the legislative efforts of pro and anti gun rights cases nationwide.

imported post

My question is.....Why would they not incorporate the 2nd against the states. From reading the briefs, the question was whetherto incorporate using the privileges and immumities clause or the due process clause. It would seem that since incorporation ofthe other amendments has been done, there would not be a question of whether to do it or not, but how to do it. What possible reason could they have not to do it?

Not a legal eagle

imported post

Think of it like building a new home.

It the McDonald/Chicago Case ruling is for Incorporation it's going to be open season for lawyers.

Heller was buying the land and McDonald will be putting in the foundation.

What has yet to be decided will bewhat the house will look like, how many roomsand what zoning restrictions will be placed on the builders and occupants.

The Second Amendment will become a new area of Federal Litigation and the number of attorneys practicing Second Amendment law will increase substantially.

imported post

I think I understand the process that is going on. Heller established that the right to bear arms is an individual right. McDonald will establish that the states must recognize that right. Then the cases will come up to establish what is reasonable regarding that right.

What I don't understand is, Why wouldn't McDonald prevail. The only argument against it would seem to be, that the states or cities don't want the feds telling them what they can and can't do. Is my picture correct?

imported post

I would agree with everything you've just posted.

The fine tuning of what we can and cannot do with our Second Amendment Rights will be determined by future cases and future courts.

The only reason I can see where the Second Amendment wouldnot be incorporated is the belief that it may create a "SLIPPERY SLOPE" depending on the manner of incorporation.


I believe incorporation will be recognized and mandated by the court.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

I would agree with everything you've just posted.

The fine tuning of what we can and cannot do with our Second Amendment Rights will be determined by future cases and future courts.

The only reason I can see where the Second Amendment wouldnot be incorporated is the belief that it may create a "SLIPPERY SLOPE" depending on the manner of incorporation.


I believe incorporation will be recognized and mandated by the court.

Click to expand...

LOL I liked "SLIPPERY SLOP" better. Cool typo.

imported post

I just realzied how close we are to this case being heard... the infamous, "two weeks."

Of course we probably won't actually get a decision for a few months after that... but I'm excited that we're approaching the hearing. The questions and responses by the judges should be revealing enough to whet our appetites.

imported post

I posted in Several States in an attempt to obtain information about other Federal Cases that are before the courts.

These cases were supplied in the Penn. area of ODCO.

It appears that some of the language and facts may fit here in California where open carry detentions take place.


Link to Pennsyalvania Kraft Complaint: http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/Federal%20Cases%20from%20OCDO/Penn.%20kraft_complaint.pdf

Link to Pennsyalvania StokesComplaint: http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/Federal%20Cases%20from%20OCDO/Penn.%20stokes_complaint.pdf

imported post

Link to Pennsylvania Banks et al Complaint: http://paopencarry.org/dicksoncity/complaint.pdf

Kraft and Banks are the same incident, but two separate filings.

imported post

Is there any information on the status of the Pennsylvania Complaints.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

Is there any information on the status of the Pennsylvania Complaints.

Click to expand...

I tried calling Robert Magee, but no answer, sat on the line waiting, left a message with hisslightly abrasive answering service.You might have better luck with your gravitas, but I'll try again tomorrow, and seeif he calls me back.

imported post

The thing I find frustrating is that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment indicates that it applies to the states regardless of the 14th Amendment.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

The thing I find frustrating is that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment indicates that it applies to the states regardless of the 14th Amendment.

Click to expand...

It also says that it shall not be infringed, and yet it has been infringed into oblivion by too many traitors in government.

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

Is there any information on the status of the Pennsylvania Complaints.

Click to expand...

I spoke to one of the attorneys at the Worth law offices, unfortunately I was a little late to the party and Bob Magee was off for the weekend, it being about 5:30 there, so we will have to wait until Monday to speak again.

I'm going to PM you his contact info, the other attorney in his office said he would likely be very happy to oblige, so you may get some good info from him.

imported post

There's one filed in Louisiana (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum26/38675.html), Osterweil v. Edmundson, et al. Has to do with the issuance of a Louisiana CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit).

Covers a few items:

• The right to carry precludes a requirement for a permit to carry concealed.
• The requirement to furnish photographs and pay a fee is contrary to the free exercise of one's rights.
• The requirement for a medical/mental release violates right to privacy.
• Two separate rates for permits based on length of residency violates equal protection.
• The requirement for a hold harmless agreement with the state subjects the applicant to potential lawsuits and expenses.

imported post

I have put together this document in an attempt to viusualize the cases that have been heard and will be heard regarding firearms and the Second Amendment.

If anyone knows of others currently filed or on appeal, please let me know.

edperuta@amcable.tv

imported post

Statkowski wrote:

There's one filed in Louisiana http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum26/38675.html Osterweil v. Edmundson, et al. Has to do with the issuance of a Louisiana CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit).

Covers a few items:

• The right to carry precludes a requirement for a permit to carry concealed.
• The requirement to furnish photographs and pay a fee is contrary to the free exercise of one's rights.
  
• The requirement for a medical/mental release violates right to privacy.
• Two separate rates for permits based on length of residency violates equal protection.
• The requirement for a hold harmless agreement with the state subjects the applicant to potential lawsuits and expenses.

Click to expand...

edit: fixed that link

imported post

I said this before on another forum, be prepared that the court will rule that 2A applies to the States, but does not prevent the States from regulating what type of arms can be carried based on federalist and conservative principles. There are many conservative members of the court of appeals who believe this way -- that there is a right to bear arms, but that the State has a right to decide which arms they can bear.

It's not so cut and dry that it will 100% be ruled one way.

imported post

Well, it really IS that cut and dried, "shall not be infringed' is pretty clear, but I see your point that it won't be ruled that way.