Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: US Supreme Court to hear Gun Case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holmen, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    I'd like some thoughts on this. If the 2nd amendment gets ruled "fundamental" in the McDonald case then all the firearms regulations basically get thrown out the window at the State and Federal level. IANAL, so I could be reading it wrong (if I'm wrong then Doug or someone else please correct me). For the most part it seems this would really solve all of our carry problems ie. school-zone, Class B liquor, car carry, ccw, gov building. Assuming all of this is correct (and I haven't made a fool of myself by making some crazy assumption) then I have to wonder if this would strike down the laws regulating the type of firearms we can own ie. National Firearms Act of 1934.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  3. #3
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    If the 2nd amendment gets ruled "fundamental" in the McDonald case then all the firearms regulations basically get thrown out the window at the State and Federal level.
    I do not believe that this ruling alone could even come close to that.... This case is more about the 2nd being incorporated concerning the states. The SCOTUS has already spoken in favor of some regulation staying in place in the Heller case..

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    If the 2nd amendment gets ruled "fundamental" in the McDonald case then all the firearms regulations basically get thrown out the window at the State and Federal level.
    I do not believe that this ruling alone could even come close to that.... This case is more about the 2nd being incorporated concerning the states. The SCOTUS has already spoken in favor of some regulation staying in place in the Heller case..
    I second this..although it sure would be nice, to have a favorable ruling nullify all firearms regulations. We won't get lucky like that.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    The supreme court has been careful in cases like this not to go beyond the initial scope of the case. Don't expect all firearms regulations to be struck down. Though we would all like to have unconstitutional restrictions lifted, it will not happen as a result of this case alone.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    I'd like some thoughts on this. If the 2nd amendment gets ruled "fundamental" in the McDonald case then all the firearms regulations basically get thrown out the window at the State and Federal level. IANAL, so I could be reading it wrong (if I'm wrong then Doug or someone else please correct me). For the most part it seems this would really solve all of our carry problems ie. school-zone, Class B liquor, car carry, ccw, gov building. Assuming all of this is correct (and I haven't made a fool of myself by making some crazy assumption) then I have to wonder if this would strike down the laws regulating the type of firearms we can own ie. National Firearms Act of 1934.
    IMHO, I think your right on. That is why Chisholm and Flynn are trying so hard to get a ccw bill passed ASAP. Chisholm himself said that their days are numbered. After this decision comes down most of the gun laws in Wisconsin will not be enforceable. Chisholm's words not mine. This means you will be able to carry either ccw or ocw without a permit, fees, mandated training. What more could we possibly ask for?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Most likely, if it get's incorporated as we think, it'll just open up the door for legal challenges in the future. This in combination with Heller would help challenge the most strict of bans; particularly bans that disallow possession in ones own home.

    To abolish all the unconstitutional laws with a decision like this would take the justices applying "strict scrutiny" which has almost zero chance of happening.

    Wisconsin will most likely be little affected as our RKBA in our constitution is more strongly worded than even the 2nd amendment. It would effect it by bringing more light to the issue and making it possible to go through federal court when Wisconsin justices don't play nice however.

    The Wisconsin SSC has been gingerly stepping around the swiss cheese of gun laws in this state for a long time. I hope the decision on a federal level would get the legislator riled up enough to get some clear and concise legislation passed; particularly around CCW to avoid any legal difficulty.

    I guess we wait and see...........
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    After Obama scrutinized the SCOTUS I am hoping they send a message. Hopefully it will be one in our favor, which I am sure it will be.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I expect we will see little changes to existing gun laws at either the federal or state level. I think the most we can expect is a slowdown of capricious state laws. At the state level the Wisconsin courts have ruled that even if the legislature passed a RKBA amendment to the state constitution existing laws are considered to be constitutional. It said so in State v Hamdan and State v Cole when those cases challenged the constitutionality of the concealed carry statute after Article I section 25 was enacted. I expect the opinion of SCOTUS would be similar. Coupled with that, in it's opinon in Heller, the SCOTUS added a "fuse" to the issue. It ruled that reasonable regulation was acceptable. The question is, who determines reasonableness. Typically that decision falls on the shoulder of the court system. My opinion is that all existing laws will remain unchanged until they are challenged in court, one at a time, to determine if they are a reasonable restriction. That will take years.

    Most scholars and students of law expect the SCOTUS to find for incorporation. That indeed will be a important decision in our favor, but don't look for it to be a panacea for our problems at the state level. ----My opinions

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I agree.

    Incorporation is likely, via the Fourteenth Amendment's 'privileges and immunities' clause or the prohibition of taking without due process life, liberty or property.

    Beyond that the law grinds exceedingly fine and exceedingly slowly. If change comes, it will come slowly.

Posting Permissions

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