Who said McDonald would not have any effects?

Who said that the McDonald Decision would not have any effect.

The Maloney decision was vacated and remanded because of McDonald.


*1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010). Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

U.S.,2010.
Maloney v. Rice

The first domino falls.



For the naysayers: do you think Alan Gura, et al, set up only two dominoes before setting things off? I think we can expect much more where this came from.

I wouldn't be surprised to see several more new filings by year-end, plus decisions on pending cases (e.g. Nordyke v King, etc).

It's not going to happen overnight, but I expect we could see major changes in the next couple years. The entire decade is going to be interesting.

Cool. As a kid I had a pair of nylon laced wooden octagon chucks that my cousin and friends and I would play and practice with...in the front yard mostly. My cousin also had a nice pair of black, round, chain ball bearing chucks. Mind you we were in elementary school and watched a lot of kung fu movies. For little kids we got quite proficient with them. They were a lot of fun and we never did break our noses, or crack our skulls with them. Though on occassion we'd sustain a bruise or two which by today's standard is horrific bordering on child abuse. Perhaps a new family set is in order.

A friend of mine had some of those. After raising a knot on the back of my head, I gave it up.

What is the case MALONEY, JAMES M. V. RICE, KATHLEEN A. in reference to? Cliff's Notes version, of course.

I believe it is the case challenging a ban on nunchaku in New York state, arguing that they are "arms" protected under the 2A. More importantly it will broaden the Heller decision from just guns to other arms that are ostensibly protected, such as knives and swords.

It's probably a good set up to eventually challenging the federal ban on automatic knives (aka switchblades) where depending on the current interpretation of the commerce clause, you would be committing a felony for just walking across a state line with one, even if the knife is legal to own in either state. The law says no interstate commerce, but then the federal GFSZ is also based on an interpretation of interstate commerce, and it is currently being enforced.

wewd said:

I believe it is the case challenging a ban on nunchaku in New York state, arguing that they are "arms" protected under the 2A. More importantly it will broaden the Heller decision from just guns to other arms that are ostensibly protected, such as knives and swords.

It's probably a good set up to eventually challenging the federal ban on automatic knives (aka switchblades) where depending on the current interpretation of the commerce clause, you would be committing a felony for just walking across a state line with one, even if the knife is legal to own in either state. The law says no interstate commerce, but then the federal GFSZ is also based on an interpretation of interstate commerce, and it is currently being enforced.

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way, the Wisconsin DA that said McDonald made a bunch of state laws unconstitutional included the prohibition on switchblades.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?77394-Jackson-County-DA-says-he-won-t-prosecute-several-state-gun-offenses-MJS

MALONEY Case

The Maloney case was out of New York, involved a set of martial arts weapons, (not a firearm), and also involved a Second Amendment claim.

The Second Circuit stated that the Second Amendment did not apply, and it appears that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise by vacating the decision and sending it back to the lower court.

So, the right to keep and bear arms seems to extend to weapons other than firearms!

There was much made of the Maloney decision when it was rendered by the Second Circuit.

wewd said:

I believe it is the case challenging a ban on nunchaku in New York state, arguing that they are "arms" protected under the 2A. More importantly it will broaden the Heller decision from just guns to other arms that are ostensibly protected, such as knives and swords.

It's probably a good set up to eventually challenging the federal ban on automatic knives (aka switchblades) where depending on the current interpretation of the commerce clause, you would be committing a felony for just walking across a state line with one, even if the knife is legal to own in either state. The law says no interstate commerce, but then the federal GFSZ is also based on an interpretation of interstate commerce, and it is currently being enforced.

Click to expand...

Is it? Can you link to ANY case where ANYONE has been charged under this Federal statute?

wrightme said:

Is it? Can you link to ANY case where ANYONE has been charged under this Federal statute?

Click to expand...

There was a thread on Calguns where someone came up with several cases where people have been charged and convicted under the revised federal law. I don't have a link to the thread but I do know for a fact that it is being enforced and there are convictions. After Heller those convictions would be highly appeal-worthy, with hopes of striking down the law for good this time, as a violation of one's 2A right, not merely an overstep of the Commerce Clause as the last case (U.S. v. Lopez) determined. But I don't know if that challenge is on anyone's radar yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong.....someone called and reported that he pointed a rifle at them. The cops entered his house and found guns, but no rifle. The found the chuks under his sofa.

coolusername2007 said:

Cool. As a kid I had a pair of nylon laced wooden octagon chucks that my cousin and friends and I would play and practice with...in the front yard mostly. My cousin also had a nice pair of black, round, chain ball bearing chucks. Mind you we were in elementary school and watched a lot of kung fu movies. For little kids we got quite proficient with them. They were a lot of fun and we never did break our noses, or crack our skulls with them. Though on occassion we'd sustain a bruise or two which by today's standard is horrific bordering on child abuse. Perhaps a new family set is in order.

Click to expand...

Man, I remember practicing out in our front yard with the homemade nunchaks: Sawed off shovel handles, a chain, a couple of wood screw eyebolts, and black electrical tape. Got pretty good at it. I remember setting up wood targets and practice throwing homemade shurikens. Bruce Lee was our hero! In elementary school, they use to call me Kato. Memories!

Sons of Liberty said:

Man, I remember practicing out in our front yard with the homemade nunchaks: Sawed off shovel handles, a chain, a couple of wood screw eyebolts, and black electrical tape. Got pretty good at it. I remember setting up wood targets and practice throwing homemade shurikens. Bruce Lee was our hero! In elementary school, they use to call me Kato. Memories!

View attachment 3181

Click to expand...

Those were the days, weren't they. I don't know about you all, but I'm thinking Red Ryder BB guns, chucks, and throwing stars for all this year at Christmas! Everything little Susie and Johnnie ever wanted! To hell with the educational toys, I've had enough, this year its only red warning label toys! LOL

So, does this mean I might be able to get an ASP soon?

I really want one of those... they seem like the perfect thing to have with you.

Other silly weapons offenses

Edward Peruta said:

Who said that the McDonald Decision would not have any effect.

The Maloney decision was vacated and remanded because of McDonald.

Supreme Court of the United States
MALONEY, JAMES M. V. RICE, KATHLEEN A.
No. 08-1592.​

June 29, 2010.​

*1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010). Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

U.S.,2010.
Maloney v. Rice

Click to expand...

In addition to making it a crime to tie two sticks together, California has an old law which makes it a crime to nail a strip of rawhide to the end of a stick. Does anyone have any idea what the weapon was called? It does have a name but I am old and feeble and don't recall what it was.

I'm writing an article on obscure weapons that have been made illegal in California prior to the Heller/McDonald decision.

Here's the list of miscellaneous banned weapons from CA PC 12020:

Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.