• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme court ruling vs. Ab1934 (open carry ban)

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Concealed carry is not the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment nor considered by SCOTUS in Heller or McDonald. The right to have firearms for self defense is what SCOTUS has incorporated and that "reasonable" restraints can be made upon that right.

It's a win, but not the end of the fight. Daley in Chicago is committed to continuing to pass onerous regulations and may now go after those who supply firearms in the theory that their ability to sell firearms isn't protected. The DC goons are also committed to continuing their onerous methods to keep people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Californias rabid anti's will be no less committed and every gain will require a legal challenge at great expense.

Incorporation is a major step but there are many, many smaller steps that must still be made.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
When the supreme court ruled that the 2A applied to the states I believe that means a person in CA can sue on the grounds that if a citizen in another state can get a CCW then a citizen in CA must be able to have the same standards and priveleges
 

4armed Architect

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
149
Location
L.A. County, California, USA
"snip... Actually, they said that the 2nd amendment in its entirety is incorporated, so that is the right to keep and bear arms.

As for what bear means, if we turn to Heller:

" c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation."


So clearly Heller recognizes the right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation" ...snip"
_________________________________________________________________________________

Rusty, I suspect you are more right than we may all imagine. Because the 2A is now incorporated, JUDGES are now significantly more free than they were previously (only a very few enlightened judges actually considered the 2a in their ruliings) to examine "Keep and Bear Arms" plus "Shall Not Be Infringed" in every ruling from now on. This includes injunctions to prevent laws from taking effect.

Also, consider that, according to another thread on this forum, CA AB2223 (Lead Ammo Ban) just died in committee. I have always held that with each major SCOTUS case in favor of gun rights, there will be the intransigent jurisdictions such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, but there will also be jurisdictions (state and local) that will actually make an attempt to re-evaluate their laws and proposed laws in light of the ruling and will either adjust them or drop them entirely. Several communities in Illinois (Wilmette was one IIRC) did exactly that by dropping their handgun prohibitions in light of Heller.

Incorporation of the 2A against states and localities will now be a much more significant discussion point in the consideration and passing of any gun and ammo laws throughout the land. Some (but certainly not all) anti-gun/ammo laws that may have been adopted will be dropped, adjusted or stopped before they have to go through lots of risky (and costly in these times of tight State and local budgets) legal challenges. There will be a lot of Attorneys General, D.A.s and local jurisdiction legal counsels who will rightly tell their elected representatives that likelihood of victory on many of their anti-gun/ammo is now greatly diminished.

So, while some of the bigger issues will likely take a while to resolve, I believe a lot of smaller scale bad stuff may fall by the wayside before they ever (if ever) work their way through the long, slow court process.

The SNOWBALL (in our favor) has been pushed down the hill and is picking up mass and speed. A lot of folks will be smart enough to get out of the way. Mayor Daley of Chicago has got to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, in my opinion.
 

A ECNALG

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
138
Location
Orange County, California, USA
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago&printable=yes&printable=yes

"...The new lawsuits likely to develop will come against the background of a new desire, among devotees of gun rights, to carry their firearms in public places. Gun owners held a large “piece rally” in Washington recently, and many guns were holstered for the occasion, to put new emphasis on the building resistance to gun-carry restrictions. A number of gun owners showed up last summer at “Tea Party” rallies, wearing their guns. Communities that interpret the McDonald decision as being limited to having guns in the home may conclude that they can ban guns anywhere outside the home. Any ordinances to that effect, though, are surely going to be tested. (And, as Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent on Monday, there is a passing hint in the Heller decision of 2008 that maybe the personal right to a gun is not limited to having it at home. In that comment, the Heller opinion said the individual right it was declaring was “a right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Lawsuits may be needed to clarify just what that right entails.)...."
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
It's going to be an interesting era in firearms laws and liberties that's for sure. At this point I've only skimmed the decision and dissents but am now reading in whole, the entirety of the SCOTUS ruling. As a conservative "right wing extremist" (DHS Certified) it is an AMAZING work to read. I'm on page 52 of the PDF file and JUST finished Justice Alito's (majority) opinion (a lot those pages were consumed by the summary which precedes the full opinion but I read that as well) and am about to begin reading Justice Scalia's work. A large portion of Alito's writing (the majority opinion) discussed the racist roots of gun control and the 14th amendment. A devastating history lesson for the "anti" side. Adding insult to injury, the majority opinion directly addressed the modern racial impact by "spanking" Chicago for the high murder rate perpetrated upon it's citizens and that 80% of the victims were black AND that they needed their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because their political representatives have failed them.

Mayor Daley, did YOU READ the decision?

I don't think we'll have much legal action here in Oregon because of this decision, our gun laws are pretty reasonable for the most part. Our issues are mostly with lower jurisdictions trying to impose their own rules in violation of state law. However, our state law allows local jurisdictions to regulate the carry of loaded firearms by non concealed license holders and THAT may well be challenged now since an unloaded firearm isn't much good against an immediate threat.

California, New Jersey, and a few other states, as well as DC, Chicago, the city of New York, and others of their ilk.....they're going to have to decide how much they can afford in litigation of their eggregious restrictions.

I can see California being sued by someone like me who desires to return (not that I do) and many of my weapons are not legal there because of their limitations on high cap magazines, "assault weapons", etc. Or by a citizen of another state who is barred from entering lawfully because their personal defense sidearm is banned there (high cap mag, taurus judge, etc.).

One thing that REALLY has me wondering..... a challenge to the BATFE and their $200 "tax stamp". If it's a fundamental right and I'm not a threat to society, then why should the federal government be able (or a state for that matter with incorporation) be able to infringe upon a fundamental right with a heavy handed restriction which was not among the four items (nor similar to any of them) that the SCOTUS has said could be a reasonable restriction?

Yup, it's gonna be enjoyable watching the Helmke's of the country crying in their soy milk.
 
Top