MEGA THREAD -Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights to All 50 States

[cekim]

I think that many...you...are also trying to make it read more broadly than it does as well.

No, I am agreeing with RKG statement that Heller does not define much of anything outside the home.

That said, many are making the argument that it "limited it to the home" which I presumed RKG was as well... There's a big difference between "only in the home" and "outside the home not defined".

It opens the door - now we have to walk through. I think I am in agreement with RKG's later statement.

I have no illusions of the difficulty we will face in defining the limits of state and federal infringement. My point is that the manner in which the door was opened by SCOTUS now means that this entire process could very well play out with nothing more than a failure to grant cert from the high court with the circuit/appeals court bit-by-bit outlining what they will permit until there is a clear conflict.

I completely understand that "shall not be infringed" will not likely be respected in my life time (with or without the English common law caveat of persons convicted after due process losing this and other rights).

 

[Kamal Jain]

That's rarely the case, even with very simple statements. Some things are very straightforward, but it all depends on what words mean, and that changes with time, place, and personal ideology.

For example, take the word "arms". More or less everyone on this forum would agree without question that rifles, handguns, machine guns, knives, and various other handheld weapons are arms. Most people here would probably say that even many weapons that are not easily transported or fired by one person (M2HB, Cannons, etc) qualify as arms, under the constitution. I suspect that many of us would go so far as to include tanks, battleships, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons. Some would say that various chemicals aren't really "arms", at least until they've been prepped, packaged, and made accessible as weapons. Most would say that bacteria, or virii, are not, in themselves, "arms", though they can certainly be used to cause harm. Now that's one simple word.

The reason contracts often come with mini-dictionaries, defining every term that might be ambiguous, and hundreds of paragraphs just enumerating possible scenarios is because plain and simple English means different things to different people.

Touche. However, contracts, agreements, etc. that DO come with such give one the opportunity to accept or reject the definitions. But the Constitution is a contract which did not come with a mini-dictionary, and we should remember that given the 9th and 10th Amendments, it is safe to err on the side of giving too much liberty rather than too little. (and then we're back to interpreting, aren't we?)

 

[theGringo]

Touche. However, contracts, agreements, etc. that DO come with such give one the opportunity to accept or reject the definitions. But the Constitution is a contract which did not come with a mini-dictionary, and we should remember that given the 9th and 10th Amendments, it is safe to err on the side of giving too much liberty rather than too little. (and then we're back to interpreting, aren't we?)

Sadly, even the word "liberty" is contentious in these times. Negative liberties? Positive liberties? Progressives and other judicial activists will continue to abuse the English language, and the constitution, to manufacture "rights" out of thin air, while denying what were once considerd essential and inviolable liberties. That's why I have a machete.

 

[cekim]

Really? No disrespect to our forefathers but do you really think that they envisioned the technology that has evolved? So with that being said...... how can the SJC rule on current cases involving today's current technology without trying to interpret what their intent was?

There is a vast chasm between "interpreting intent" and what we have seen done by this court...

I echo Kamal's point WRT to "shall not be infringed". While they very much understood the common law concepts that removed the "absolute" nature of this statement (i.e. they understood that after due process had been observed if you were convicted, you could lose various rights - otherwise how would we ever imprison/punish people found guilty?), I do not agree or see any justification or authority granted in the Constitution to ban guns in school zones, in courts, in state-houses, etc...

Technology is largely irrelevant to that point.

There is a nasty, endless debate to be had about what sorts of weapons we have a right to that does involve technology (i.e. nukes), but that is well beyond rifles, pistols, cannons, etc...

 

[Kamal Jain]

Sadly, even the word "liberty" is contentious in these times. Negative liberties? Positive liberties? Progressives and other judicial activists will continue to abuse the English language, and the constitution, to manufacture "rights" out of thin air, while denying what were once considerd essential and inviolable liberties. That's why I have a machete.

Agreed!

And on that note -- good night, Folks.

 

[cekim]

Who said anything about the SJC?

The question IIRC was how weak our case would be without incorporation. My response to you comment about the AG overreaching is that without incorporation, we have no clear path to Federal court and as such, we must rely on the SJC to limit the bad behavior of the AG.

It has not and will not do this. Our remedy is not likely to be found in the state court - even with incorporation.

 

[Half Cocked]

I completely understand that "shall not be infringed" will not likely be respected in my life time

Yup.......... it will now be....... "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be [STRIKE]infringed[/STRIKE] ever completely defined"

 

[Half Cocked]

Technology is largely irrelevant to that point.

There is a nasty, endless debate to be had about what sorts of weapons we have a right to that does involve technology (i.e. nukes), but that is well beyond rifles, pistols, cannons, etc...

I was speaking generally regarding the Constitution and SJC as a whole..... not specific to the 2A. I may have been mistaken but I beleive that Kamal Jain had been also originally.

 

[Half Cocked]

HC, you're bucking to be Obama's next SCOTUS nominee, aren't you!

HaHaHa...... Unfortunately I am over qualified. I am a hard working male US citizen.

 

[Coyote33]

Now that we can say the 2nd Amendment is a right granted by the constitution could MA residents refuse to pay the $100 fee? In 1943 there was a case called Murdock v. Penn, in this case the SCOTUS ruled that “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution”. Would this not apply to the licensing fee?

Sure, but how? +1.

...I do not agree or see any justification or authority granted in the Constitution to ban guns in school zones, in courts, in state-houses, etc...

Just for clarification, when and where exactly did this practice begin, anyhow? Did they carry arms into courthouses at one time, even back in blackpowder days?

 

[Coyote33]

delete this post

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

After gun ban defeat, Chicago mayor proposes strict rules
Move follows Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership

CHICAGO — With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

READ MORE

 

[LogicTrigger]

That's rarely the case, even with very simple statements. Some things are very straightforward, but it all depends on what words mean, and that changes with time, place, and personal ideology.

For example, take the word "arms". More or less everyone on this forum would agree without question that rifles, handguns, machine guns, knives, and various other handheld weapons are arms. Most people here would probably say that even many weapons that are not easily transported or fired by one person (M2HB, Cannons, etc) qualify as arms, under the constitution. I suspect that many of us would go so far as to include tanks, battleships, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons. Some would say that various chemicals aren't really "arms", at least until they've been prepped, packaged, and made accessible as weapons. Most would say that bacteria, or virii, are not, in themselves, "arms", though they can certainly be used to cause harm. Now that's one simple word.

The reason contracts often come with mini-dictionaries, defining every term that might be ambiguous, and hundreds of paragraphs just enumerating possible scenarios is because plain and simple English means different things to different people.

While it is still open to interpertation I think it is a arguable point that a simple word like arms is partly based on context, is this case I would argue "arms" are whatever tools are neccessary to maintain a defense against lawlessness, invasion, and tyranny. I feel that context is just as important as the broad definition of "arms" as any sort of offensive weapon.

 

[dixidawg]

No one is saying that Heller limited the scope of the 2d Amendment right to possession in the home.

All they are saying, quite correctly, is that Heller did not itself define the right to be any broader than possession in the home. How far beyond possession in the home is a question entirely undecided (in legal terms, "left open") by Heller.

So how would Heller effect a homeless person's right to possess?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The question IIRC was how weak our case would be without incorporation. My response to you comment about the AG overreaching is that without incorporation, we have no clear path to Federal court and as such, we must rely on the SJC to limit the bad behavior of the AG.

It has not and will not do this. Our remedy is not likely to be found in the state court - even with incorporation.

Even without the 2nd amendment, the AG's misapplication of 93A lead to potential federal questions. McDonald only makes it better

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just for clarification, when and where exactly did this practice begin, anyhow? Did they carry arms into courthouses at one time, even back in blackpowder days?

The move to ban guns at/around schools started in 1966, after Charles Whitman shot a number of college students (with a rifle) from the tower in Texas. Police had to borrow another student's rifle (from his car IIRC) to take Whitman out. Then the hue and cry to ban guns from schools started on a national level (but IIRC only applies to K-12). MA took it and ran with it (expanding it to include colleges) . . . not sure on dates for MA.

Courthouses (state) were spotty on any security at all probably into the early 1990s, some had it, some didn't.

At some point (think it was late 1970s or early 1980s), I walked into the USPO in PO Square in Boston to mail a letter inside and was faced with x-ray machine, metal detectors. I wasn't armed but didn't want the hassle just to mail a letter so I left. That same building housed the US District Court upstairs and that was the reason for the security. They had also placed Jersey barriers out at the edge of the sidewalk in front of the building.

 

[Cato]

No one is saying that Heller limited the scope of the 2d Amendment right to possession in the home.

All they are saying, quite correctly, is that Heller did not itself define the right to be any broader than possession in the home. How far beyond possession in the home is a question entirely undecided (in legal terms, "left open") by Heller.

I agree. However, after reading other posts that follow in this thread I think something needs to be pointed out. The Heller decision did not say "only" in the home.

Mr. Heller asked for three things regarding possession in the home. The court gave Heller 100% of what he asked for. The Supreme court does not offer parting gifts after decisions and therefore does not go beyond what is being asked. Nothing should be inferred form this.

I will say this though. There are hints in the decision that indicate that possession does go outside the home. For example, Justice Scalia pointed out that "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...".

I think that based on Scalia's statement, logic would dictate that carrying firearms in other places should be allowed.

 

[NFD9]

I agree. However, after reading other posts that follow in this thread I think something needs to be pointed out. The Heller decision did not say "only" in the home.

Mr. Heller asked for three things regarding possession in the home. The court gave Heller 100% of what he asked for. The Supreme court does not offer parting gifts after decisions and therefore does not go beyond what is being asked. Nothing should be inferred form this.

I will say this though. There are hints in the decision that indicate that possession does go outside the home. For example, Justice Scalia pointed out that "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...".

I think that based on Scalia's statement, logic would dictate that carrying firearms in other places should be allowed.

+1 Good angle, I like it.

 

[terraformer]

So how would Heller effect a homeless person's right to possess?

Good question but it doesn't. One needs to then deal with carry in that as well as storage issues as well as residency.

 

[cekim]

HaHaHa...... Unfortunately I am over qualified. I am a hard working male US citizen.

Sadly true...

We have a right to a jury of our peers, but the judges may be as detached from our reality as they please... [sad2]

Looks like Chicago wants to do us some favors and continue pressing the boundaries. There is a risk though that they give SCOTUS/Courts the opportunity to continue to issue narrow "no, not that either" rulings rather than a broader finding (strict scrutiny) of the protection of this natural right.

 

[Titan]

So how would Heller effect a homeless person's right to possess?

Exactly.

The 2A reads '...the right to keep and bear arms...". There is NO limitation to 'protect one's real property'.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

Daley Presses Gun Restrictions
July 2, 2010

The NRA says Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley has deliberately defied the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Justices overturned Chicago’s ban on handguns in the city and 4 days later, city aldermen unanimously approved the most-strict regulations on gun ownership in the nation; 45-0. Daley and his team have carefully crafted the ordinance in an attempt to dodge any conflicts with the supreme-court ruling, but at a press conference the Mayor made it clear that he is ready for a fight. “As long as I’m Mayor, I will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation including Chicago,” He said at a press conference announcing his counter to the ruling.

The ordinance begrudgingly allows gun owner ship but slaps a host of regulations on top of it. Some of the key regulations are as follows:

Gun owners need a Chicago Firearms permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every 3 years, in addition to their Illinois Firearm owner’s ID.

Firearms sales are banned in the city.

Chicago residents can register only 1 handgun per month.

When a weapon is transported it much be taken apart and not accessible.

It is illegal to have your gun on the porch, yard or Garage. The gun is only legal inside the residence.

Only one gun in the house can be ready to be fired. The rest must have trigger locks or be disassembled.

Guns are banned from hotels, dorms or group living environments.

READ MORE

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

July 03, 2010
Thanks to Otis McDonald and the Supremes
By Bob Weir

The most important job of the government is the protection of its people. That protection involves their physical safety and the security of their property. It means providing police presence to deter criminals before they commit crimes and harsh penalties for offenders whose crimes were not deterred. The fact is that most crimes cannot be deterred because the bad guys don't generally mug people in front of the officer on patrol. Since the police can't be everywhere, people need a way to protect themselves.

That was how Otis McDonald felt when he walked into a Chicago police station and applied for a .22-caliber pistol two years ago. The 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer became the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in U.S. history. As the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's 28-year handgun ban, McDonald was a sympathetic figure: an elderly man trying to protect himself from violent hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood.

READ MORE

 

[cekim]

That was how Otis McDonald felt when he walked into a Chicago police station and applied for a .22-caliber pistol two years ago.

A real community service oriented police department would have suggested he needed a larger caliber...

 

[lupis42]

A real community service oriented police department would have suggested he needed a larger caliber...

Will a 9mm stop a Bear's fan?

 

[cekim]

Will a 9mm stop a Bear's fan?

I don't know, but we learned recently from the police in those parts that if it doesn't you can just mow 'em down with a 4-wheeler...

As always, I would remind the officer who did that to always be aware of what's behind your target (i.e. a fellow officer in this case) and point your 4-wheeler in a safe direction at all times. Do not step on the gas until you are ready to go...

 

[Deleted member 12999]

From Scalia's Concurrence:

JUSTICE STEVENS’ final reason for rejecting incorporation of the Second Amendment reveals, more clearly thanany of the others, the game that is afoot. Assuming thatthere is a “plausible constitutional basis” for holding thatthe right to keep and bear arms is incorporated, he asserts that we ought not to do so for prudential reasons. Post, at
47. Even if we had the authority to withhold rights thatare within the Constitution’s command (and we assuredlydo not), two of the reasons JUSTICE STEVENS gives forabstention show just how much power he would hand to judges. The States’ “right to experiment” with solutions to the problem of gun violence, he says, is at its apex herebecause “the best solution is far from clear.” Post, at 47– 48 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is true of most serious social problems—whether, for example, “thebest solution” for rampant crime is to admit confessions unless they are affirmatively shown to have been coerced, but see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 444–445 (1966), or to permit jurors to impose the death penaltywithout a requirement that they be free to consider “any relevant mitigating factor,” see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455
U. S. 104, 112 (1982), which in turn leads to the conclusion that defense counsel has provided inadequate defense if hehas not conducted a “reasonable investigation” into potentially mitigating factors, see, e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 534 (2003), inquiry into which question tends to Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) 13
destroy any prospect of prompt justice, see, e.g., Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U. S. ___ (2009) (per curiam) (reversinggrant of habeas relief for sentencing on a crime committed in 1981). The obviousness of the optimal answer is in theeye of the beholder. The implication of JUSTICE STEVENS’ call for abstention is that if We The Court conclude that They The People’s answers to a problem are silly, we are free to “interven[e],” post, at 47, but if we too are uncertain of the right answer, or merely think the States may be onto something, we can loosen the leash.

That was a verbal spanking.

 

[dixidawg]

Keep reading. It gets better, right down to the last sentence:

JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever
the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected
rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,” post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life tenured
judges always get their way. That such usurpation
is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53—with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,” ibid.—makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach,
not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

 

[RKG]

Sadly true...

We have a right to a jury of our peers, but the judges may be as detached from our reality as they please... [sad2]

Looks like Chicago wants to do us some favors and continue pressing the boundaries. There is a risk though that they give SCOTUS/Courts the opportunity to continue to issue narrow "no, not that either" rulings rather than a broader finding (strict scrutiny) of the protection of this natural right.

I suspect you've never tried a jury case. I'll take a judge any day of the week.

 

[cekim]

I suspect you've never tried a jury case. I'll take a judge any day of the week.

Valid point... I'd do the same in most cases as well...

This comment was in reference to SCOTUS who are tremendously isolated/insulated. Perhaps more so than any other type of judge.

I've frequently commented that I have seen juries at work (on camera, behind the scenes) and it is terrifying to think of one's freedom/life left to that process that so often degrades into a strange high-school leadership experiment.