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

[gjones77]

What will this mean for state enacted AWB's like Mass and Cali?

Depends on the case, but in my estimation, we should be able to challenge and over turn many of those laws based on the Heller ruling, since it had the phrase "guns in common use", common could easily be proven by the fire arms one is allowed to purchase in many states outside of Mass, and that being the case, the approved roster and AG list could be seen as UnConstitutional.

 

[Flyer007]

If they go away, I am buying 100 PMAGS and un-neutering my rifles.

I'm right behind you!!!!

 

[Flyer007]

I want a clarification of 'bear'. That's still a big problem.

It's sad and scary that our Constitutional rights hinge on the vote of one person.

I'd like to have "shall not be infringed" hardened so we can dump the stupid MA crap

 

[silvereye21]

Forget about the AWB, lets get our MG's back. Wait... too soon? I know I'd definatley being commonly using them.

 

[yanici]

I expect nothing will change for MA. Lawyers & Lawsuits notwithstanding.

Bingo. But the dam now has a more substantial leak in it thanks to this decision.

 

[djo]

Very good news, though I am disappointed that it was a 5-4 vote. Too close over something that should be so obvious.

 

[theGringo]

Typical sentiment from HuffPo readers:

With teabag-Tim McVeigh wanna-be's agitating daily for the overthrow of the Obama administration, the Roberts Banana Republik court is doing all it can to help arm the insurgents and general seditionist traitors. We The People are helpless to stop it.

Wouldn't expect anything less of the corporate owned right wing bushie installed "judges."

They are destroying our country with their NRA directed rulings that have nothing to do with the people or the Constitution.

I would be in favor of unlimited gun rights, if unlimited access to mental health treatments came alongside of it. But if not, I'm going to be looking at anyone who feels they absolutely need to carry a gun with them at all times with a good bit of skepticism. Actually, I'm not even going to make eye contact, I'm just going to back away quickly, but not calling attention to myself.

 

[Eye5600]

What will this mean for state enacted AWB's like Mass and Cali?

I suspect that state law that can be construed to promote safety or require good moral character and education will survive. The gun list may survive; there are plenty of good guns, and the stated (though possibly not most important) point of the list is to ensure the guns are safe. I wouldn't count on the AWB going away anytime soon for the same reason.

 

[Bfatz]

My bad for posting in the Off topic forum..

Interesting comments on the Supreme Court gun ruling - which in fact is simply applying WHAT IS WRITTEN in the Constitution. The main question should be how we have 4 justices who think THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA outweighs the Constitution.

If you want to change the law, have the legislature of the land - better known as CONgress write a new amendment. Then, have 75% of the states (38) approve it by their defined methods. Then it gets signed and added to the Constitution.

But DON'T have a bunch of self-important, life-time appointees tell the rest of the country that the Constitution does not matter, only their own opinions!

Finally, those opposed to guns seem to forget one simple fact in our history - our CITIZEN-SOLDIERS were ready to fight, they KNEW how to use guns and when war came they were VERY effective. I have read above where the ONLY one's they want to have guns is the government - well, during WWII the Japanese knew they could NEVER invade the USA because they KNEW it was an armed camp - like Switzerland, where weapons training and possession is COMPULSORY and where crime and outside threat are unknown. Think about THAT!

 

[dwarven1]

What a wonderful way to start the week. Hey, Mayor Daley!

I expect nothing will change for MA. Lawyers & Lawsuits notwithstanding.

Don't bet on that... Alan Gottleib's got a lot of irons in the fire, and he's well aware of what we're suffering through here in MA. We'll probably see the SAF train come to town at some point.

Hmm... that reminds me. Time to go join them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Exciting summer for us to be sure......I just wish that in MA "the list" and the AWB extension is seen as infringing on 2nd amendment

SAF is about to file another suit challenging this in CA, which if the USSC rules on it (before O stacks the court), would affect the MA List . . . but I'm unsure that it would do anything wrt the AG Regs.

will effect the fate of H.4102?

Not at all. If you have one gun, any gun, the 2A is covered. Quantity will be looked upon as a "reasonable restriction"!

Now becomes the race for cities like Chicago to enact arcane licensing procedures and fees like DC did.

I think it's a victory, but for those in Chicago, it may not be that sweet. Only time will tell.

Yup, they'll make it almost impossible to get/keep the permits needed, etc. See posts above mine for what Daley is cooking up.

This has profound implications for certain types of LTC revocations and denials.

Much of the bedrock of MA court decisions has rested on the fact that an LTC (in this context, I'm talking about an LTC as the item allowing possession, not carry in the "plain English" sense of the worked) is not a "right", and that depriving someone of access to an LTC is not "punishment" and therefore does not require due process. The use of heresay evidence; revocation to exercising the right to remain silent; revocations based on expired RO's, etc. have all been upheld by the MA courts. Mcdonald could be the basis for some substantial challenges to these practices and turn issuance of an LTC (although possibly a restricted one) into shall issue.

As I've been told by one chief, "The Constitution is superseded by MGLs"!!

MA will continue to operate as it always has, ignoring Fed Law (and the Constitution) until some day maybe a pristine case from MA gets the USSC and they specifically get slapped down. That's likely a very long way away from happening.

No way do I expect the MA legistraitors to "do the right thing" and certainly not MCOPA or EOPS!!

I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

I expect nothing will change for MA. Lawyers & Lawsuits notwithstanding.

Yup, that's what I expect as well.

I wonder how this will directly affect MA....this should be an interesting week for us here in the PRM....

See above.

What will this mean for state enacted AWB's like Mass and Cali?

See above. The USSC will look (as MA courts have) at "a gun is a gun" and see no need to overturn arbitrary bans on guns due to features.

 

[Palladin]

SCORE!

 

[Pilgrim]

The gun list may survive; there are plenty of good guns,

Heller said 'commonly used guns' could not be banned. If they're used in 48 or 49 states (not MA) then they should be allowed here under the ruling.

But we'll have to fight for it, I bet.

 

[dfranke]

This seems to be the narrowest possible decision in our favor. They elaborate no further (compared to Heller) about what restrictions are permissible under 2A, and they don't even explicitly strike down the Chicago ban. They merely reverse the 7th circuit's finding that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, and remand. It's the victory I expected, but not the one I hoped for.

 

[cb1]

Typical sentiment from HuffPo readers:

Clearly they have yet to read the very opinion they are railing against. Then again, that's not surprising on the interwebz.

 

[wahsben]

If they go away, I am buying 100 PMAGS and un-neutering my rifles.

Group Buy!

 

[EZEKIEL 25:17]

+2 for Scalia, just in case he decides to join this board.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

I want to see the Brady Bunch try to spin this as a victory like they did the last time.

 

[Baldkat82]

I want to see the Brady Bunch try to spin this as a victory like they did the last time.

they dont have the money to get any publicity!

 

[Speedway]

I think a celebration is in order.

 

[lord1234]

Is the words "reasonable restriction" even in the ruling? I didn't see it. Can someone point me to it in the PDF?

 

[soloman02]

I think a celebration is in order.

Too bad I can't drink at work .

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Too bad I can't drink at work .

Too bad I can't shoot at work.

 

[flintoid]

I want a clarification of 'bear'. That's still a big problem.

It's sad and scary that our Constitutional rights hinge on the vote of one person.

We can thank G.W. for putting that "one person" in the Supreme Court.

from this yahoo article

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed.

THANKS, GEORGE!

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

This has profound implications for certain types of LTC revocations and denials.

Much of the bedrock of MA court decisions has rested on the fact that an LTC (in this context, I'm talking about an LTC as the item allowing possession, not carry in the "plain English" sense of the worked) is not a "right", and that depriving someone of access to an LTC is not "punishment" and therefore does not require due process. The use of heresay evidence; revocation to exercising the right to remain silent; revocations based on expired RO's, etc. have all been upheld by the MA courts. Mcdonald could be the basis for some substantial challenges to these practices and turn issuance of an LTC (although possibly a restricted one) into shall issue.

What about just eliminating the LTC altogether? A Right is no longer a Right when it becomes a "permitted process" where a person must not only in many cases "beg" the state's permission, but pay for that begging on top of it.

I'd just as soon eliminate the entire corrupt process like Arizona did and recognize a right for what it is.....something which was never given or granted by the state and therefore not subject to their taking away.

 

[TheRoland]

Is the words "reasonable restriction" even in the ruling? I didn't see it. Can someone point me to it in the PDF?

They reitterate that Heller does not overturn all possible regulations. I don't remember seeing "reasonable restriction", but this opinion isn't really about gun rights; Heller controls.

 

[soloman02]

We can thank G.W. for putting that "one person" in the Supreme Court.

from this yahoo article

But didn't the justices Bush appoint replace conservative ones anyway? Therefore all Bush did was keep the status quo.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

they dont have the money to get any publicity!

LOL good point.

 

[wahsben]

Unfortunatly here in Ma. and in several other states some of our elected leaders, some judges and lawyers, police and others feel that they are above the law which the COTUS is and will continue to ignore our rights and do as they please.
Until these traitors and that is what they are face serious consequences such as imprisonment etc. for their actions we will continue to suffer violations of our rights.

 

[Garys]

I want to see the Brady Bunch try to spin this as a victory like they did the last time.

I don't know about the Brady people, but the Violence Policy Center has released the expected hand wringing statement. "People will die" and "Cities and towns will have to expend precious resources to fight frivolous cases" crap. Well, people will die, but mostly the right people will die. And the cities and towns don't have to expend a penny, all they have to do is follow the law.