Brady's misplaced schadenfreude? "McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling may prove a hollow victor

imported post

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2010/03/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago-ruling-may.php

[Excerpt] There was, however, one idea around which the justices seemed to coalesce: even if the right is incorporated, states and localities will retain broad power to regulate the right in the interest of public safety.

The discussion of necessary limits on the right to be armed began with a trenchant observation by Justice Breyer. He asked Attorney Gura this question: "Is this right different from others?" Justice Breyer then answered his own question by making two points.

First, he noted that empirical issues involving guns are hotly contested ("You know, one side says a million people killed by guns. Chicago says that their – their gun law has saved hundreds, including...lots of women in domestic cases. And the other side disputes it.") and that "[w]ithout incorporation, it's decided by State legislatures; with, it's decided by Federal judges." [/Excerpt]

Click to expand...

imported post

"Heller made clear that state and local jurisdictions do retain SOME authority to regulate "keeping and bearing." Where[Brady's] analysis goes off the tracks is assuming that any authority would be BROAD authority.

The Court has yet to set the level of scrutiny for gun regulation. There is no reason to do so in this case because the Chicago gun ban, like the DC ban, is a total ban on keeping guns. Under Heller, that is already held to be unconstitutional.

When the courts come around to setting a standard for regulation, it should be consistent with the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence: that is, is the regulation "necessary to achieve a compelling public interest."

That would mean states and localities retain NARROW authorities to regulate the fundamental right."

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

"The Court has yet to set the level of scrutiny for gun regulation. There is no reason to do so in this case because the Chicago gun ban, like the DC ban, is a total ban on keeping guns. Under Heller, that is already held to be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

actually, Chicago only bans handguns

imported post

Theguy wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

"The Court has yet to set the level of scrutiny for gun regulation. There is no reason to do so in this case because the Chicago gun ban, like the DC ban, is a total ban on keeping guns. Under Heller, that is already held to be unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

actually, Chicago only bans handguns

Click to expand...

My mistake:

a total ban on a whole category of guns commonly used for self-defense then.

imported post

It will still be a fight to show that the local laws that exist are not in the interest of public safety and more importantly that "rules and regulations, fees" (such as almost $3,000 in NYC to get a handgun license) make it virtually a ban in itself.

The courts will over time eventually rule that handguns can be obtained and carried by citizens who have to go through a few hoops.

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2010/03/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago-ruling-may.php

[Excerpt] There was, however, one idea around which the justices seemed to coalesce: even if the right is incorporated, states and localities will retain broad power to regulate the right in the interest of public safety.

The discussion of necessary limits on the right to be armed began with a trenchant observation by Justice Breyer. He asked Attorney Gura this question: "Is this right different from others?" Justice Breyer then answered his own question by making two points.

First, he noted that empirical issues involving guns are hotly contested ("You know, one side says a million people killed by guns. Chicago says that their – their gun law has saved hundreds, including...lots of women in domestic cases. And the other side disputes it.") and that "[w]ithout incorporation, it's decided by State legislatures; with, it's decided by Federal judges." [/Excerpt]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

imported post

Unfortunately one of those hoops is likely to be pay the NRA, putting them between you and your RKABA as Interrupter_Knights.

Pace wrote:

It will still be a fight to show that the local laws that exist are not in the interest of public safety and more importantly that "rules and regulations, fees" (such as almost $3,000 in NYC to get a handgun license) make it virtually a ban in itself.

The courts will over time eventually rule that handguns can be obtained and carried by citizens who have to go through a few hoops.

Click to expand...

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Unfortunately one of those hoops is likely to be pay the NRA, putting them between you and your RKABA as Interrupter_Knights.

Pace wrote:

It will still be a fight to show that the local laws that exist are not in the interest of public safety and more importantly that "rules and regulations, fees" (such as almost $3,000 in NYC to get a handgun license) make it virtually a ban in itself.

The courts will over time eventually rule that handguns can be obtained and carried by citizens who have to go through a few hoops.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The NRA's attorney, fomer Solicitor General for W, did a damned fine job--better than Gura. He knew due process was the correct path. Gura stuck on P&I too long--especially when our friends on the court let him know it was a non-starter. Give credit where credit is due: The NRA done good.

imported post

I am a life-time member of the NRA, even though I don't agree with them 100%. I am a life-time member of GOA and I don't agree with half of their non-gun issues and have told the executive staff that, but I still support them because they do good.

Both of them attack the issue from a different angle

I can tell you this: Without the NRA we would have no gun freedoms whatsoever in this country. None.

imported post

Pace wrote:

I can tell you this: Without the NRA we would have no gun freedoms whatsoever in this country. None.

Click to expand...

you're probably very right there.

imported post

Thanks I think we often have our eye on the goal so much that we forget we are past the 50 yard line, thanks to all the organizations.

imported post

Chamberlains carrying the nekkid Emperor's chamberpot.

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Unfortunately one of those hoops is likely to be pay the NRA, putting them between you and your RKABA as Interrupter_Knights.

Pace wrote:

It will still be a fight to show that the local laws that exist are not in the interest of public safety and more importantly that "rules and regulations, fees" (such as almost $3,000 in NYC to get a handgun license) make it virtually a ban in itself.

The courts will over time eventually rule that handguns can be obtained and carried by citizens who have to go through a few hoops.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The NRA's attorney, fomer Solicitor General for W, did a damned fine job--better than Gura. He knew due process was the correct path. Gura stuck on P&I too long--especially when our friends on the court let him know it was a non-starter. Give credit where credit is due: The NRA done good.

Click to expand...

Whethter due process is the correct path is debatable; the fact that due process is the easy path is not. I believe the NRA doesn't want incorporation through P or I because of the generally republican base of their membership. Our "Friends" on the court aren't any friends at all when they laugh and scoff at overturning a poor decision or when they talk about creating a "chart" to diagram whichrights they will dangle like a proverbial carrot in front of our noses. Gura did a fine job, without the NRA there healmost surely wouldhave broken down and given into due process as well.


The NRA didn't give us Heller; in fact, they didn't want it to go to court. They only signed on when they knew we would win. This time they got their fingers in it right away, for what reason I don't know.

I'm not one of the NRA haters but I don't like them very much either. I show the same amount of disdain for them as they do for us open carriers. The bastard stepchildren of the gun rights movement.