What next after the expected Supreme Court Ruling

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

Should have no impact whatsoever on Pennsylvania's firearms laws. LTCFs are already "shall issue" statewide and open carry is legal statewide. There are some minor issues to be dealt with, but they're strictly at state level.

imported post

Thanks for the reply, I'm really looking to see if there are any current or planned Federal cases on the everyday issues regarding firearms.

imported post

There are currently two federal civil rights lawsuits in Pennsylvania, that I can remember off the top of my head.

The first is the "Dickson City Incident," which consists of two complaints:
http://www.paopencarry.org/dicksoncity/complaint.pdf (four plaintiffs)
http://www.paopencarry.org/dicksoncity/kraft_complaint.pdf (fifth plaintiff, filed separately)

The second is the Allentown lawsuit:
http://paopencarry.org/allentown/stokes_complaint.pdf

PA Open Carry dot Org has all the additional filings, cross filings, etc., etc.

Both are open carry incidents that occurred before open carry was included in annual police training in 2009.

imported post

McDonald had the MD government and MSP running around like chickens with their heads cut off. They are LOSING THEIR MINDS in fear that McDonald will be ruled in favor o incorporation...

The MD AG, the Superintendent of the MSP, and the High Courts in Md have rules on eseveral occasions that the 2A "does not apply in MD". and that position has become official case law, and adopted policy by the MD Judiciary.

If McDonald gets ruled in favor of incorporation, it would literally turn official firearms ownership, transport, and purchase policies and statutes in MD on it's ear. They would lose their justification for non-issuance of carry permits. They could arguable have to throw out their egregious 7 day waiting period, ballistic fingerprinting requirements, and other state-sponsored firearms-related regulations. They could arguable be forced--by a single lawsuit--to grant reciprocit ot other states' carry permits...

There has been a flurry of anti-2A bills proposed in the house and senate over the last month--bills requiring a special permit to transport a firearm in MD (that would ONLY be issued to residents--in DIRECT violation of FOPA), bills to broaden LEO search and detention allowances, it's just a $h!+storm of constitution-shredding over in Annapolis these days...

Yeah, the boys in Annapolis and Pikesville are losing their minds in the anticipation of this one, WAY more than Heller...

I have a good feeling about McDonald--I think it will go in our favor. And I can't wait to watch the fireworks in DC and Annapolis when they realize what it will REALLY mean for them... :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

The cases supplied by Satkowski and the comments by Dreamer are exactly what I am looking to find. I have posted in the California section the cases from Pennsylvania because they may be relative to the open carry confrontations taking place on a regular basis.

I am also aware of the fact that the Connecticut Legislature will hear public testimoney tomorrow from those who believe that the Chicago/McDonald case will seriously impact anyplanned legislation inthe area of firearms regulation.


Your state is not the only state where the laws may have to change.


Here is a sample of what will be presented to the Connecticut Legislature tomorrow.

Opening Comments to testimony to be given by Peter Kuck in opposition to Raised Bill No. 5158 before the Public Safety Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature on February 18[suP]th[/suP], 2010.[/b]

My name is Peter Kuck and I am here today as a citizen of the state of Connecticut. I am also a member of the Board of Firearms Permit examiners and in the name of full disclosure one of the individuals who has filed a Civil Rights suit against the Department of Public Safety in Federal Court. I last appeared before this committee on February 24[suP]th[/suP] 2009. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this proposed legislation is from the Department of Public safety (not the public) and that it was rejected by the legislature last year.

Before June 30[suP]th[/suP] of this year the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether the individual rights guaranteed by the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment of the constitution are binding on the states in the same manor as the other nine rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

At some point in the near future there will also be a ruling from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in two Civil Rights cases which were heard on September 17[suP], [/suP]2009 (Kuck V Danaher & Goldberg V Danaher). These cases involve due process rights regarding firearms and will also directly impact current laws, regulations, policies and practices of the State of Connecticut.

For the State of Connecticut to enact any firearms related legislation without first knowing the outcome of these cases would be at best irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer’s time and resources.

There is no current need or crisis that compels the legislature to pass additional firearms laws since Connecticut currently has in place a workable set of firearms related laws and regulations that if understood and followed by public officials and members of the public, provide sufficient ways to protect the Public Safety and guarantee Connecticut citizens their rights under the Connecticut Constitution.

If anything, this legislature in this legislative session must be prepared to comply with and fund any court mandated changes that may become necessary to assure the due process and constitutional rights that may be addressed in any of the expected decisions.

The biggest problem with legislation presented you by the department of public safety is that it continues to concentrate power in the hands of the Department of Public Safety and in doing so strips power from local chiefs of police and the citizens of Connecticut.

Specific comments in regards to the contents of raised Bill No. 5158

1. I oppose the language of the proposed legislation that changes “the blood alcohol limit for the offense of carrying a firearm while intoxicated to achieve parity with the level for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated”. The problem with this language is that there is no mechanism to provide a citizen with a means of defense in the event of an unsubstantiated allegation by the police. There needs to be a requirement for a blood alcohol test such as is required by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Without such a requirement I believe the law will be abused (as it has was by members of the CSP in the motor vehicle DUI arrest scandal highlighted in the AG’s report in December 2006).

2. I oppose any language in this bill that would give the Commissioner of Public safety additional authority regarding the transfer or registration of firearms. DPS has failed to maintain the firearms data base they currently possess as evidenced by the email below. In cases where the data base is incorrect, it is the citizen who must prove his innocence. DPS has been known to use the process as the punishment against citizens in cases such as these.

From: Mancini, Seth [mailto:Seth.Mancini@po.state.ct.us]

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:28 PM

To: Ed Peruta
Subject: RE: FOI REQUEST


Mr. Peruta:


Iappreciate it. Here’s what I have been advised by SLFU staff:


There were 3125 letters sent out originally on 10/7/09, then new letters were sent to the same people the next week with an explanatory cover letter. The total number of missing DPS-3s (currently) is 10927. Because the system only keeps a running total, I cannot account for those DPS-3s that have been turned in between 10/7 and today, and therefore now do not show up on the list of outstanding authorization numbers. The oldest authorization number for which we sent a reminder letter was from June, 2000.

DPS has known that not all DPS-3s have been returned, but SLFU recently completed entering a substantial back-log of DPS-3s, and the completion of that task prompted the letters to go out for those that remained unaccounted for after all the DPS-3s had been entered into the system. DPS has no record of receiving DPS-3s that were not properly accounted for. Authorization numbers and submission of DPS-3s are not required for private sales of long guns.

I trust this response answers your questions.

Seth

Sgt. Seth G. Mancini, Esq.

Commissioner's Staff

3. I continue to oppose (I have opposed this in the last 2 sessions) any requirement that gun show promoters notify the Commissioner of Public Safety of any planned gun show. DPS seems not to understand a Legislative “no”. State statute currently gives this authority to Connecticut’s local police departments. They do a good job. There is no need to duplicate or change the existing state statute in this matter other then to add to the DPS budget.

4. I continue to oppose the inclusion in this bill of any new law in regards to bail enforcement agents, professional bondsmen and surety bail bond agents as well as the “require[ment] that certain firearms and criminal justice course instructors be approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety; [or] to provide an exemption to the offenses of selling, carrying or brandishing a facsimile firearm for a participant in a state-certified qualified production” do not belong in this bill since they do not directly effect a citizens rights and should therefore be stripped from the bill.

5. I oppose granting DPS with additional time in this proposed legislation to fulfill their responsibilities under state statute. The proposed legislation adds the following language “(2) With respect to any application for an eligibility certificate filed with the Commissioner of Public Safety after July 1, 1995, the commissioner shall, [within ninety days] or not later than sixty days after notification from the Federal Bureau of Investigation,(A) approve the application and issue the eligibility certificate,[(B) issue a temporary eligibility certificate], or [(C)] (B) deny the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial in writing.”

This is an invitation for [/b]The Commissioner or DPS staff to drag their feet and delay submission of any requests to the FBI to prolong the process without recourse or accountability.

The Submission by the Commissioner of all requests to the FBI for National Criminal History Records Checks should be submitted by most expeditious means available within 5 business days following an application being received.

Local Issuing Authorities are required to submit requests to DPS/CSBI within 5 business Days under provisions of Section 29-29. Why exempt DPS from the same standard?

Institutional bias as to the interpretation of the law

The Connecticut State Police have a high number of attorneys who are also sworn officers. This continues to create a conflict of interest within the department that focuses the officer/lawyer within the department on defending the most “favorable interpretation” of the law that his fellow officers enforce. This is an inherent conflict of interest since law enforcement does not have the authority to interpret the laws that this legislature passes.

imported post

The bill you need to look at in MD is SB-742.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/SB0743.htm


The insideous part of this bill is that is sets up the REQUIREMENT that ANY non-resident bringing a gun into MD--EVEN for "legitmate" reasons as outlined in the statute (goingot a range, or competition, or hunting, or to a gunsmith, etc) MUST have a permit to carry issued by their home state.

This could foreseeably be used under color of law to prosecute travelers who were legally covered by FOPA, and would put those folks out there who have non-resident permits in a REALLY tight spot if they were stopped by the police, because non-res permits would not be honored under this bill.

This bill is being proposed as an end-run around the possibility of a favorable McDonald ruling in the SCOTUS, and as an attempt to keep legitimate gun owners from bringing their firearms into the state when traveling for business or pleasure.

MD government is a criminal enterprise, and SOMEONE needs to rein them in. Annapolis is COMPLETELY out of control...

imported post

Wow, you guys are really great. I appreciate all teh up to date legal info all of you have posted.

Here's a question for you..

If MD does enact a law that revokes FOPA in MD, and an out of state person is caught transporting a firearms legally (per FOPA), would that person be able to sue the state of Maryland?

Also, if the above does happen in MD. I can bet that the Nazi like MDSP will set up checkpoints on teh border of states like the DUI checkpioint looking for firearms.

imported post

Actually, MSP and Montgomery County LEA's already does that. See this thread in the Maryland state section of OCDO:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum28/38109.html

If you are stopped for other "moving violations" in the parts of MD that are close to the WV, VA, or PA border, they will ALWAYS ask if you have firearms in the vehicle, and if you say yes and have them locked up per FOPA, they will initiate a full vehicle search.

Their justification is that they say there are a lot of people from VA and PA with carry permits that carry illegally in MD, and they are trying to catch them...

I believe I will either be leaving my firearms at home when I travel to Md in the future, or dropping them off with my friend in VA before I cross the border. It's just not worth the risk, and quite honestly I don't really relish the idea of some MD LEO manhandling my firearms...:uhoh:

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Actually, MSP and Montgomery County LEA's already does that. See this thread in the Maryland state section of OCDO:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum28/38109.html

If you are stopped for other "moving violations" in the parts of MD that are close to the WV, VA, or PA border, they will ALWAYS ask if you have firearms in the vehicle, and if you say yes and have them locked up per FOPA, they will initiate a full vehicle search.

Their justification is that they say there are a lot of people from VA and PA with carry permits that carry illegally in MD, and they are trying to catch them...

I believe I will either be leaving my firearms at home when I travel to Md in the future, or dropping them off with my friend in VA before I cross the border. It's just not worth the risk, and quite honestly I don't really relish the idea of some MD LEO manhandling my firearms...:uhoh:

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, but I refuse to travel unarmed. Especially due to my previous job in Maryland.

I guess when a MDSP officer asks if you have any firearms in the car you can always say no.
Maryland really makes me sick. I only go back there once or twice a year.