rushmc 23 #1 March 2, 2010 Should Heller be applied to the states. From AP found on NewMax QuoteHigh Court Looks at Reach of Second Amendment Tuesday, 02 Mar 2010 11:35 AM Article Font Size The Supreme Court appears willing to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected. The court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area. The suit also asks the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C. The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much." © Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 March 2, 2010 Guessing at it: I think the outright bans (Cook Co) or effective bans (NYC) will go away. But the waiting periods up to 2 weeks, the one a month limitations imposed by some states, will remain. Those don't remove your right to bear arms, they just prevent you from doing so in a hurry. So unless you got a stalker, you can wait. If you do, well you're screwed. Best to buy a gun in advance of any actual need in those states, like I did. In between are the selective bans on classes of weapons (CA's AW ban) that I'm less certain on. They might adopt a pornography stance on those - we know it when we see it. If the true aim of the restriction is to make it difficult to own usable guns, then it wouldn't stand. If it's just a petty attack on some carbines, maybe. CCW policy are the other one that could be affected, but I'd venture that would also remain a state's decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 March 2, 2010 QuoteGuessing at it: I think the outright bans (Cook Co) or effective bans (NYC) will go away. But the waiting periods up to 2 weeks, the one a month limitations imposed by some states, will remain. Those don't remove your right to bear arms, they just prevent you from doing so in a hurry. So unless you got a stalker, you can wait. If you do, well you're screwed. Best to buy a gun in advance of any actual need in those states, like I did. In between are the selective bans on classes of weapons (CA's AW ban) that I'm less certain on. They might adopt a pornography stance on those - we know it when we see it. If the true aim of the restriction is to make it difficult to own usable guns, then it wouldn't stand. If it's just a petty attack on some carbines, maybe. CCW policy are the other one that could be affected, but I'd venture that would also remain a state's decision. As good a guess as any I wonder how fast they will turn this one around? devil is in the details"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 March 2, 2010 Quote I wonder how fast they will turn this one around? It will go on for a decade or longer, esp if their decisions are narrow in focus. It will take a number of different rulings to complete the picture. Just as Heller lead to several focused suits by the NRA, each of those results will lead to reactions from the NRA, from the local governments, from the Brady types. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuote I wonder how fast they will turn this one around? It will go on for a decade or longer, esp if their decisions are narrow in focus. It will take a number of different rulings to complete the picture. Just as Heller lead to several focused suits by the NRA, each of those results will lead to reactions from the NRA, from the local governments, from the Brady types. Sorry I was not clear as I agree with you on this. I was just wondering about this specific ruling"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote I wonder how fast they will turn this one around? It will go on for a decade or longer, esp if their decisions are narrow in focus. It will take a number of different rulings to complete the picture. Just as Heller lead to several focused suits by the NRA, each of those results will lead to reactions from the NRA, from the local governments, from the Brady types. Sorry I was not clear as I agree with you on this. I was just wondering about this specific ruling Heller had an interval of a little over 3 months between oral argument and decision. That was on the relatively speedy side for SC; but I'd anticipate this one to be similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 March 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I wonder how fast they will turn this one around? It will go on for a decade or longer, esp if their decisions are narrow in focus. It will take a number of different rulings to complete the picture. Just as Heller lead to several focused suits by the NRA, each of those results will lead to reactions from the NRA, from the local governments, from the Brady types. Sorry I was not clear as I agree with you on this. I was just wondering about this specific ruling Heller had an interval of a little over 3 months between oral argument and decision. That was on the relatively speedy side for SC; but I'd anticipate this one to be similar. Thanks I did not know how long that one took"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #8 March 3, 2010 A question. If the court does indeed come out and say that the right is an individual right, then wouldn't laws against "assault weapons" be considered unconstitutional since it's reasonable that in order to serve in the 2nd amendment's militia, you'd need military-grade hardware. In the same vein, could the tax on destructive devices be stricken since its whole purpose is to impeed the flow of miltiary hardware to the citizenry via excessive expense? If you could get that through then it seems like it'd only be a realtively short step to force the miltary to not demil surplus weaponary sold to US citizens for personal use. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 March 3, 2010 QuoteA question. If the court does indeed come out and say that the right is an individual right, then wouldn't laws against "assault weapons" be considered unconstitutional since it's reasonable that in order to serve in the 2nd amendment's militia, you'd need military-grade hardware. In the same vein, could the tax on destructive devices be stricken since its whole purpose is to impeed the flow of miltiary hardware to the citizenry via excessive expense? If you could get that through then it seems like it'd only be a realtively short step to force the miltary to not demil surplus weaponary sold to US citizens for personal use. -Blind I think even the most conservative justices will say that, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding, certain reasonable limits may be set on the nature and lethality of weapons an ordinary citizen may have purely as a matter of right. (Extreme examples might be, say, civilians cannot have missile-equipped fighter jets, tanks or nuke-you-lar weapons.) If the SC did that, I'd predict that they'd probably leave the definition of "reasonable" for another day, to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 March 3, 2010 QuoteA question. If the court does indeed come out and say that the right is an individual right, then wouldn't laws against "assault weapons" be considered unconstitutional since it's reasonable that in order to serve in the 2nd amendment's militia, you'd need military-grade hardware. In the same vein, could the tax on destructive devices be stricken since its whole purpose is to impeed the flow of miltiary hardware to the citizenry via excessive expense? If you could get that through then it seems like it'd only be a realtively short step to force the miltary to not demil surplus weaponary sold to US citizens for personal use. -BlindQuote Andy908 answered your question better than I could and I agree with him. and Even in the Heller case (and as with the First Amendment as spelled out by the SC) no rights are absolute."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 March 3, 2010 "nuke-you-lar weapons" Kinda like corps man huh....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #12 April 26, 2010 "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." As true today as it was When Ben Franklin wrote it in 1755. http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/chicago-pols-want-national-guard-to-help-fight-crime-wave/19453978You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites