Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: What next after the expected Supreme Court Decision

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post 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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    So what are the issues of the 2 cases you mentioned?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Rodbender,

    Visit this website www.ycgg.org and you will find various links.

    Here is the direct link to three cases, two of which were appealed to the Second Circuit after being dismisses locally. The Second Circuit can make a ruling at any time.

    http://www.ycgg.org/legal_pg.html

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:


    Edward,

    Why did you post this in each state? What a waste...one post would have allowed us to follow all the post....keep this in mind next time.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    This was posted in each state where there is a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes that more people would contribute information.

    John Pierce the moderator of the site is aware of what I did and understands the logic in my doing so.

    Many people who visit and use open carry to share and obtain information do not monitor or participate in ALL the states.

    I have already received information from several areas of the country that I would not have received had I posted in one state or one area of the board.

    I'm sorry for any confusionthat may be casued, but I am receiving comments, suggestions and information that I would not have received otherwise.






  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    It will be interesting to see.

    First thing is to get a full breadth of the SCOTUS decision. If it is in favor of McDonald/NRA, then I would assume lots of laws regarding registration will be considered unconstitutional across the land, but what types of registrations will be effected and will it extend to permits to purchase, openly carry, or carry concealed a firearm? Will SCOTUS state that the registrations at the state and below levels are affected or federally as well?

    What ever decision is made, Edward, please tell me if you know or not, how will it be codified into law? There is often question, even after a SCOTUS decision that changes or clarifies the interpretation of law, as to how its scope is implemented and on what schedule.

    Either way, after the decision is made, many laws will need to be individually or collectively challenged in the court of law or state legislatures may consider enacting laws to circumvent and find an alternative method OR they may repeal, through Act, the very laws challenged by the SCOTUS. Sensible judicial officers would defer to the SCOTUS decision or any other higher case law that covers that jurisdiction, any others that do not would still be legally bind and have to be challenged by an appellate court which typically has less abrasive or abusive officers (and present their own sets of checks and balances aside from a single judge on the bench). State and even the Federal executive branches may issue or be issued (by their commanding officers) executive orders to ignore certain standing laws in order to maintain a level of compliance with the SCOTUS decision.

    I am assuming this is how it could all work.

    All in all, this could be bloody interesting and I hope the get pro-gun SCOTUS decisions.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SMITHFIELD, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    " if the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states"




    Please explain. What does that mean?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Anthony_I_Am wrote:
    " if the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states"




    Please explain. What does that mean?
    What that means is that thus far SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal, but not the state, government. DC v Heller did nothing to change this due to the fact that Washington DC is a federal district rather than a state and is thus subject to federal law.

    AFAIK up until yesterday no state had deemed that the 2nd Amendment applied to it. Now that has changed. The WA state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the 2nd Amendment does indeed apply to the state via the 14th Amendment.

    http://tinyurl.com/yd63k9h

    ETA: link
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    This is why it should not be leftentirely up to states to choose, ultimately, how their citizens should live when it comes to things explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th amendment is a powerful document. States have already proven that they'll do largely what they want to do until challenged by a higher authority (and they tend to cry and threaten action of some kind). Some will cooperate with each otherm, such as will concealed carry reciprocity laws, etc. But it still leaves minefields of firearm carrying laws and restrictions that we all have to be familiar with. We should equally have the ability to defend ourselves with our weapons anywhere we go in the United States.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    I believe it was the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that may have recently (within the past few months) created a circuit split with respect to whether a misdemeanor domestic assault conviction is a permissible reason to deny the convicted of his right to keep and bear arms.

    If I recall correctly, that court vacated a conviction for illegal firearm possession after finding, applying intermediate scrutiny, that a blanket ban was not sufficiently tailored to the important government interest of protecting victims of domestic violence.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    This is why it should not be leftentirely up to states to choose, ultimately, how their citizens should live when it comes to things explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th amendment is a powerful document. States have already proven that they'll do largely what they want to do until challenged by a higher authority (and they tend to cry and threaten action of some kind). Some will cooperate with each otherm, such as will concealed carry reciprocity laws, etc. But it still leaves minefields of firearm carrying laws and restrictions that we all have to be familiar with. We should equally have the ability to defend ourselves with our weapons anywhere we go in the United States.
    +1

    There as that little thingie called States Rights though.

    Full reciprocity of all 50 states + D.C. would be a beautiful thing.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    tekshogun wrote:
    This is why it should not be left*entirely up to states to choose, ultimately, how their citizens should live when it comes to things explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th amendment is a powerful document.* States have already proven that they'll do largely what they want to do until challenged by a higher authority (and they tend to cry and threaten action of some kind).* Some will cooperate with each otherm, such as will concealed carry reciprocity laws, etc.* But it still leaves minefields of firearm carrying laws and restrictions that we all have to be familiar with.* We should equally have the ability to defend ourselves with our weapons anywhere we go in the United States.
    +1

    There as that little thingie called States Rights though.

    Full reciprocity of all 50 states + D.C. would be a beautiful thing.

    ********** Yata hey
    And all territories...

  13. #13
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Let's see...the 2A came long before the 14A and we had 2A rights. Somehow, we needed the 14A to tell us we had 2A rights. Now we need a decision in 2010 to tell us we have 2A rights again.

    Hmmm.

    Does anyone else see a problem here?
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    This is why it should not be leftentirely up to states to choose, ultimately, how their citizens should live when it comes to things explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th amendment is a powerful document. States have already proven that they'll do largely what they want to do until challenged by a higher authority (and they tend to cry and threaten action of some kind). Some will cooperate with each otherm, such as will concealed carry reciprocity laws, etc. But it still leaves minefields of firearm carrying laws and restrictions that we all have to be familiar with. We should equally have the ability to defend ourselves with our weapons anywhere we go in the United States.
    No, the states should be allowed to decide what they want individually.

    However, those states which choose to trample the rights of their citizens should have their statehoods revoked until they come into compliance with the requirement to provide a republican form of government.:celebrate

  15. #15
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    What's really important isn't the "due process" clause that's being argued in this case but instead the "privileges and immunities" clause which may come later.

    How many people have gotten CLEO signoffs and submitted form 4's to the BATFE to lawfully purchase NFA weapons? How many people own DD's, suppressors, full autos, SBR's etc? Very, very few...

    And yet, the whole process to get them is allowed via the due process clause. It's like getting a CPL in the state of California. They're "may issue" rather than "shall issue" you have due process there.

    Winning McDonald may be nice, but it's only a tiny step in the right direction. Due process can still be made so prohibitively difficult whether by cost, such as NFA weapons at the time of the NFA legislation, ($200 tax stamps were a huge amount of money then) or by bureaucracy (such as getting a CLEO signoff now.)

    Ideally what we need is recognition that the 2nd amendment applies to everyone in the US regardless of incorporation, since the entire bill of rights predates the silly 14th amendment which is absolutely unnecessary. Since we're not going to ever get that, what we need is incorporation under the privileges and immunities, but we're probably not going to get that either. That leaves us with "due process" and CA can still have their assault weapons bans and wonky laws because they do have "due process" for some things and "reasonable restrictions" on others.


    Look at the "landmark" case of Heller v. D.C. and the result of that. D.C. residents do indeed have the ability to get firearms now, but the powers that be tried to make it very difficult by charging too much, delaying or "losing" paperwork and otherwise making life difficult for anyone going through all of the permitting to buy a handgun in D.C. and that's it; due process. They had to go back to court again to get D.C. to clean up their act and make the permits go through the rusty wheels of D.C. bureaucracy more smoothly.

    Why do they even need permits in the wake of D.C. v. Heller? Because they're providing D.C. residents with due process, so they can require permits if they want to, as long as it's "fair" and "equal."

    I don't think McDonald or due process incorporation is nearly as big as its being made out to be. It's privileges and immunities that matters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •