The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Gun Control in the US: Second Amendment "Incorporated" in CA
mcdermott
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Well, not just California but the entire ninth circuit.
Citizens can challenge state, local gun laws
So basically the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers the entire West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, and a couple flyover states, ruled that an individual right to bear arms (as established by the Supreme Court earlier with the Heller decision) applies at the state and local level as well (a question that was avoided in Heller). Which means that citizens in the entire district (California and Hawaii in particular) can now challenge firearms restrictions, including carry restrictions, on Constitutional grounds.
I haven't read the entire decision yet, but it seems the question of what level of review to apply was not addressed yet (also avoided in Heller). However, considering it's an enumerated Constitutional right (in the original Bill of Rights, no less) it's not unlikely that it will eventually fall under strict scrutiny.
The case involved gun show organizers who were restricted from holding a gun show on the fairgrounds in Alameda County by a law banning firearms on all city/county property. The court upheld the restriction, but stated in the ruling that the Constitutional right did apply in this case (but that, under Heller, the fairgrounds was a "sensitive" area that could be restricted).
I'm not sure if the County can even appeal (seeing as they won), and I doubt the gun show organizers are likely to, so this is probably fairly final. To my understanding, this can be considered as a non-binding precedent in any other circuit now as well...though it can also be ignored (conflicting rulings would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court decision).
So, yeah. Discuss? I'm thinking this will become a huge issue in California right quickly, despite the fact that (at least judging by news.google.com) it's receiving very little press coverage. For instance, you've got pretty much instant grounds to challenge any county where "may-issue" concealed carry pretty much means "no-issue," seeing as loaded open carry is also (to my knowledge) illegal. Not sure how successful some of these challenges will be, but it should be interesting to see what happens.
EDIT: I'm guessing part of the lack of coverage is the fact that this was pretty much a foregone conclusion? I mean, it hadn't happened yet but did anybody really think that after Heller the second amendment wasn't going to be incorporated eventually?
EDIT: Upon further google-monkeying, I see two corrections. One, the circuit still hasn't decided whether to hear the case en banc, so this isn't "final" final yet. Two, I should probably put "incorporation" in quotes since that term apparently technically only applies when the Supreme Court does it.
EDIT: Also I'm retroactively making this not the thread for discussing the likelihood of success of an armed insurgency against the U.S. government by armed citizens. If anybody really wants to discuss it, start a thread and go wild.
Citizens can challenge state, local gun laws
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote:(04-20) 19:10 PDT San Francisco -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms - the first such ruling in the nation - but upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.
So basically the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers the entire West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, and a couple flyover states, ruled that an individual right to bear arms (as established by the Supreme Court earlier with the Heller decision) applies at the state and local level as well (a question that was avoided in Heller). Which means that citizens in the entire district (California and Hawaii in particular) can now challenge firearms restrictions, including carry restrictions, on Constitutional grounds.
I haven't read the entire decision yet, but it seems the question of what level of review to apply was not addressed yet (also avoided in Heller). However, considering it's an enumerated Constitutional right (in the original Bill of Rights, no less) it's not unlikely that it will eventually fall under strict scrutiny.
The case involved gun show organizers who were restricted from holding a gun show on the fairgrounds in Alameda County by a law banning firearms on all city/county property. The court upheld the restriction, but stated in the ruling that the Constitutional right did apply in this case (but that, under Heller, the fairgrounds was a "sensitive" area that could be restricted).
I'm not sure if the County can even appeal (seeing as they won), and I doubt the gun show organizers are likely to, so this is probably fairly final. To my understanding, this can be considered as a non-binding precedent in any other circuit now as well...though it can also be ignored (conflicting rulings would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court decision).
So, yeah. Discuss? I'm thinking this will become a huge issue in California right quickly, despite the fact that (at least judging by news.google.com) it's receiving very little press coverage. For instance, you've got pretty much instant grounds to challenge any county where "may-issue" concealed carry pretty much means "no-issue," seeing as loaded open carry is also (to my knowledge) illegal. Not sure how successful some of these challenges will be, but it should be interesting to see what happens.
EDIT: I'm guessing part of the lack of coverage is the fact that this was pretty much a foregone conclusion? I mean, it hadn't happened yet but did anybody really think that after Heller the second amendment wasn't going to be incorporated eventually?
EDIT: Upon further google-monkeying, I see two corrections. One, the circuit still hasn't decided whether to hear the case en banc, so this isn't "final" final yet. Two, I should probably put "incorporation" in quotes since that term apparently technically only applies when the Supreme Court does it.
EDIT: Also I'm retroactively making this not the thread for discussing the likelihood of success of an armed insurgency against the U.S. government by armed citizens. If anybody really wants to discuss it, start a thread and go wild.
mcdermott on
0
Posts
Yes!
*Fist Bump* anyone?
edit-But seriously this is fucked up
I'm also wondering what this means practically, could someone explain it in simple terms to my extreme layman?
Now if you are fucking crazy or a felon, then of course you can lose your right to bear arms, just like you can lose other rights by violating the law. I'm not that crazy.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
There's also the fact that there is some precedent for cities and states being allowed to limit permits to two a decade in Marijuana law, of all places. There's one case that found the government can require permits to sell pot even if it stops issuing them, and another says that the government can't require the applicant to break the law to comply with the law (one law required that the applicant bring in the pot before he could get the permit, thereby breaking possession laws).
For example, those four cops shot by Mixon a week back. They even knew how to use their guns.
It means that state gun control laws have to hold up against the federal standard of constitutionality in regards to the Second Amendment.
Look, personally, I'm not opposed to certain, very mild, levels of gun registration.
But! I firmly believe that any such conversation should start with the second amendment. If you think gun laws need to change out of what is allowed for by the 2nd, then the amendment needs to change, first.
Which will never happen.
I think it is.
Wait, no, that doesn't fit.
I bet this is a response by all right-thinking justices to the impending tyranny of the Obama administration and its desire to take our [strike]jerrrrrbs[/strike] gunnnnns!
In 2 years, we'll all be carrying handguns, but our rifles that look spooky and scary will be taken away from us.
Oh, and my source: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&rgn=16
Aren't most of the guns in areas where you're more likely to hit a banjo than a person if you start shooting randomly, though?
I also love how Texas was on a list of states that are supposed to prove that the states that give out these permits aren't hicksville. Florida isn't as bed, but the size of the confederate flag I saw when I was down there should probably also disqualify it.
I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.
I'll just throw some points out there.
I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?
Yep. And both are invalid. Gun laws only prevent the law abiding from carrying guns, not criminals.
A gun is only a tool. Besides, even as a resident of CA, if I wanted to carry a concealed weapon for the express purpose of committing a crime the law obviously isn't going to stop me. I've already decided to commit a crime.
I would like to repeat just how unfortunate an example the Mixon case is, given that the cops had guns, and still died.
Turk eh [strike]jerb[/strike] gurnz!
If you'll read the full meaning of the sentence you can go farther than "Nuh-uh, Texas is too full of hicks!" Texas has many very large metropolitan areas, compared to some other states. Concealed handguns are not problems there.
Honk: Many states with concealed permits do require education, and practice, to receive them. Any new concealed law enacted could do the same, or go even further.
Septus: Ok, as far as I knew concealed carry was only allowed very restrictively. I was under the impression that this act would mean that everyone owning a gun could walk about with it as he pleased.
Requirements vary based on the state. Also based on prior status in the military or law enforcement.
You have a very strange conception of how crime works. Most criminals don't just disregard all laws out of hand, and almost none of them have connections. That's why knife crimes go up in places where guns are banned, not that they want to hide the fact that they bought a howitzer on the black market. Even if they do have the connections, there is nothing easier that going to a gun show. You don't even need to enter the show, they'll sell them to you while you're waiting in line!
Ninjas.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
Yeah. Almost everyone I know and myself included(and I don't own any guns) go through hunter education classes, which emphasize to death the importance of gun safety.
Besides, like he said, Texas (and Indiana) have some pretty good sized cities, and even with the incredible amount of guns in the state, still have pretty low gun rates. I mean, I could easily go to a gun show, buy a carbine, load it up, and go shoot down plenty of people in a city. Yet very few people do that.