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

[RKG]

An LTC "target only" would imply you are not allowed to use it for self defense in your own home.

I believe this statement is quite wrong as a matter of law. The regulatory offense is "carrying" without a license outside of one's home, and the "target shooting" "restriction" constrains only the reasons why one can carry outside the home. Nothing in an LTC purports to license or restrict the reasons why you might shoot.

(I could also argue that an armed home intruder qualifies as a "target," but that is wordsmithing.)

 

[wahsben]

Yes excellent point. There is plenty of work for everyone!

Jesse, Thank you very much for the work you are doing to fight these harrassing, discriminatory and unconstitutional laws.

 

[RKG]

Don't worry - I won't.

What I am curious about, is what are you going to do Officer Half Cocked, when you are called out to a gravel pit on a noise complaint. You come across a half-dozen guys shooting at targets with AR's. They have permission from the land owner to be there. You notice that everyone has P-Mags, flash suppressors and collapsable stocks. One of them offers you a mag and asks you if you want to shoot. Are you going to check their serial numbers to ensure their lowers are pre-ban? Make arrests for non-compliance? Call their respective CLEOS about their unsuitability? Call in SWAT and take those citizens down? Or will you be sound to the Constitution, accept the mag and try out the guys rifle? Just curious.....

For what it is worth, a police officer is legally bound to accept a statute as written, unless or until a Court of competent jurisdiction rules that the statute is constitutionally defective. A police officer has no legal authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of a statute.

 

[codenamepaul]

For what it is worth, a police officer is legally bound to accept a statute as written, unless or until a Court of competent jurisdiction rules that the statute is constitutionally defective. A police officer has no legal authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of a statute.

But he is not legally bound to enforce any law in particular

 

[soloman02]

If you take the law literally, an Officer can ticket you for going 1 MPH over the speed limit. Will he? Probably not.

 

[PaulD]

Don't you have to pay a large sum to get a license in DC? If so that would seem to invalidate your point until SCOTUS rules on a case dealing with that.

I think they do but the DC city government has already been taken to task at least once on what they've implemented post Heller. Further, I believe there's a bill in the Senate to change that (I could be wrong there).

That said, it's clear the DC government did everything they could to push the bounds of the Heller decision and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more court cases. Plus, being that it is DC that puts a special burden to bring those court cases about.

Leaving the fee issue aside, it is still perfectly legal in MA for a CLEO to deny an LTC for whatever reason (s)he wants. I don't see how that can stand up after today.

 

[cekim]

But he is not legally bound to enforce any law in particular

Which is where it can get messy - when the Constitution conflicts with a state law and SJC ruling on that law. They are bound by oath to enforce both...

Generally, unless we are talking about a court order to put two in the head of everyone who voted against Barry approved by the SJC, the order of events is the LEO errors on the side of the SJC and relies on due process, but it is not inconceivable or without precedent that the LEO could be put into a position where the law is so bad that they should ignore it and protect their community by upholding the constitution.

If only this were always a theoretical question we could have a hearty laugh about it, but it has happened and it will happen that legislatures and courts pass laws we all know are an abomination and must be ignored by any good citizen. It happened in Europe, it happened here, mileage varied and will again in the future for those who either obeyed or disobeyed these orders depending on the timeframe in question...

German officers died by execution for ignoring their orders just prior to the end of the war... A few months or weeks later and their actions would be rewarded handsomely...

 

[Speedway]

A police officer has no legal authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of a statute.

Neither did Hitler's stormtroopers.

 

[RKG]

But he is not legally bound to enforce any law in particular

As broadly as you put it, this statement isn't correct.

The subject is complex. However, as a general matter it is true that a police officer has a limited range of discretion to decline to initiate a criminal proceeding for a nominal violation of which he becomes cognizant, where he concludes that because of unusual circumstances specific to the event in question demonstrate that it is not within the intent of the criminal prohibition itself. On the other hand, a police officer who concludes that "I will never enforce Statute X because I don't like it or I don't agree with it or I think it is unconstututional" exposes his apppointment or commission to forfeiture.

Do not confuse prosecutorial discretion with a power to repeal enacted legislation.

 

[soloman02]

Neither did Hitler's stormtroopers.

Impressive. We made it to 191 posts before Goodwin's law was fullfilled.

 

[cekim]

Neither did Hitler's stormtroopers.

Therein lies the trap...

You are oath bound not to carry out illegal orders, but your ability to determine the legality of orders is limited at best. Which is why, as I said, for the most part, the expectation is the LEO does his/her best to do what has been found to be legal before and trusts due process to sort out the particulars.

However, as I also said, this process has broken down in the past with MIL/LEO on both sides of the fence on disobeying "unlawful orders"...

 

[YosemiteGram]

Tis a victory, however, I am scared...not shocked but, scared that a single vote either way and we lose it all. Would it be this close if it were the 1st ammendment or any of the others?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

+1. Civil disobedience is only a successful tactic when the law and popular sentiment are at odds. Otherwise, you won't be a "peaceful protester". You'll be a "lone nut with a gun".

What happens when you have 25,000 people who'm the sentiment is popular with? No "lone nut with a gun" there. Just because the cause is "Gun Rights", doesn't automatically make it a bad thing......thats what the moonbats want you to think, and by your reply, they've succeeded.

Civil disobedience and ultimately open warfare has ALWAYS been the deciding factor of who is going to prevail and who is not. If this country continues down the path its headed, there unquestionably will be a point of no return and the fate of the nation will be decided by the barrel of a gun.

 

[cekim]

Tis a victory, however, I am scared...not shocked but, scared that a single vote either way and we lose it all. Would it be this close if it were the 1st ammendment or any of the others?

Indeed, the intellectual fraud practiced by "the 4" in their dissent is terrifying. We can expect more of this agenda pushing at all costs in the future which does not bode well for Heller's "Reasonable Restrictions."

On that point, they've made it clear through Heller and now MacDonald that they did not intend to invalidate Federal laws (school zone, GCA68, etc...), but the progressives/liberals are taking this to be licenses to do whatever they please...

Kagan has said as much as well...

The fact that Common-Law allows for depriving the rights to felons should have no bearing on those of us who are not felons, but the liberals are happy presuming all of us "commoners" are felons without trial...

 

[dixidawg]

As broadly as you put it, this statement isn't correct.

The subject is complex. However, as a general matter it is true that a police officer has a limited range of discretion to decline to initiate a criminal proceeding for a nominal violation of which he becomes cognizant, where he concludes that because of unusual circumstances specific to the event in question demonstrate that it is not within the intent of the criminal prohibition itself. On the other hand, a police officer who concludes that "I will never enforce Statute X because I don't like it or I don't agree with it or I think it is unconstututional" exposes his apppointment or commission to forfeiture.

Do not confuse prosecutorial discretion with a power to repeal enacted legislation.

Isn't that exactly what Obama is doing WRT immigration laws?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Substantively, I don't disagree. Tactically, you have to remember that if you lean far enough over the gunwhale, you fall in the water. Depending on things, a lot of others could be hurt by the splash.

Yes, its all about live and let live.....something that government officials don't like to do.

 

[cekim]

Impressive. We made it to 191 posts before Goodwin's law was fullfilled.

Well, the internet can roll its collective eyes all it wants, but the parallel is appropriate given the subject.

To exclude the quintessential lesson of history WRT to why we the people need to represent a viable threat to any future tyrrany because you are tired of hearing about it is to push your head into the sand and accept whatever the tyrant wants to do to you...

 

[dfranke]

What happens when you have 25,000 people who'm the sentiment is popular with?

If you can get 25,000 people out in the streets for a cause, then my precondition is negated and you now have critical mass for successful civil disobedience. But you don't bootstrap yourself to that point by first having 1, then 5, then 100, and so forth, people breaking the law. You do it by first building a critical mass of obedient protesters, meekly waving signs and obeying traffic laws, who can then be emboldened by their numbers and transition to more daring tactics. Much, if not most, of the US is already at or near the point where they can get away with that, but MA is not.

 

[Dressed to Kill]

In for the Pmag group bye , I wont be holding my breathe through.

chalk up another one for the 2A

 

[Bizkitjmd1]

It took awhile to read through everything, but it is good to see that the government is actually doing something right. Now they need to work on lifting the restrictions of carrying state to state.

 

[Ladymelz]

Strange logic

If the right to bear arms ends at my front door, then when this economy makes us all homeless, then no one will be able to own a handgun.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If the right to bear arms ends at my front door, then when this economy makes us all homeless, then no one will be able to own a handgun.

Doesn't even have to go that far........what about a homeless person who sleeps in a park and uses the park bench as his legal address now?

All of these frivolous qualifiers these legislators think up are just smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue and present a barrier for them to hide behind for reelection purposes.

 

[foggy65]

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.

I agree. Don't expect much to change inMA anytime soon.

A lot of Stevens' dissent was focused on limiting the 2A right to the ability to have a handgun in your home. The majority opinion was also careful to say that the right isn't unlimited "It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

That said, it is nonetheless encouraging that the court held that "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right." If that's the case then how can it be limited to exercise in only your home?

I wonder if when we next apply for a Class A LTC can we put "To exercise my rights under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution" on the line that asks for the reasons why we need an LTC.

 

[cekim]

If the right to bear arms ends at my front door, then when this economy makes us all homeless, then no one will be able to own a handgun.

Yeah, the picked up on "homestead" when that was just one of many things discussed amongst our rights to defend (self, family property, etc...)

Baby steps... We have decades of cultural brainwashing to unwind... Eventually, if we do our part, it will be as obvious to nearly everyone as it is to us what "shall not be infringed" really means.

First we have to undo decades of media blitz and mis-education that have trained people to fear these hunks of metal.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If you can get 25,000 people out in the streets for a cause, then my precondition is negated and you now have critical mass for successful civil disobedience. But you don't bootstrap yourself to that point by first having 1, then 5, then 100, and so forth, people breaking the law. You do it by first building a critical mass of obedient protesters, meekly waving signs and obeying traffic laws, who can then be emboldened by their numbers and transition to more daring tactics. Much, if not most, of the US is already at or near the point where they can get away with that, but MA is not.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I must agree......thats why I've given up on it and hope to see this state collapse completely.

 

[cekim]

That said, it is nonetheless encouraging that the court held that "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right." If that's the case then how can it be limited to exercise in only your home?

Though at the same time discouraging that we are distracted with the criminal aspect of this as opposed to the all-encompassing right to defend one's self against not only violent crime, but also the taking power by a corrupt government.

As you say, the idea that this extends only to the boundaries of one's home is laughable...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A lot of Stevens' dissent was focused on limiting the 2A right to the ability to have a handgun in your home.

True, but the loss of the ability to revoke or deny an LTC (albiet a restricted one) based on heresay; exercising one's right to remain silent; an arrest not resulting in a conviction; an expired RO; or "gut feel" of the issuing authority would be a non-trivial change from current public policy in MA.

 

[cekim]

True, but the loss of the ability to revoke or deny an LTC (albiet a restricted one) based on heresay; exercising one's right to remain silent; an arrest not resulting in a conviction; an expired RO; or "gut feel" of the issuing authority would be a non-trivial change from current public policy in MA.

Given that we have people afraid of demonstrating peacefully for fear of being found "unsuitable", I don't think this point can be overstated...

 

[jar]

True, but the loss of the ability to revoke or deny an LTC (albiet a restricted one) based on heresay; exercising one's right to remain silent; an arrest not resulting in a conviction; an expired RO; or "gut feel" of the issuing authority would be a non-trivial change from current public policy in MA.

This, and the other cases are already coming. There are a few pending already. Sykes v McGinnis addresses carry in two counties in CA. When this was stayed pending McDonald, Palmer v. DC was filed for carry in DC to sidestep the incorporation issue. Pena v Cid is also pending McDonald, challenging the CA roster.

The wheels of the courts grind slow, but there are more and more of them getting going. As stated elsewhere, SAF has a bunch of irons in the fire. I just joined as a life member today. In the comments I told them that more donations were coming when they start filing cases in MA.

 

[David Balkus]

I hope this open's the door for Runyan to appeal his case.I beleive it does..