TexasCHLforum.com

stroo wrote:Nope. Scalia is telling the gun grabbers that they don't need to worry about this ruling going to far! He doesn't have to have this section in his opinion since it is entirely irrelevant to the issues before him. He put it in to signal how far or how limited this ruling really is.

Again this is a victory but it is not as much of a victory as many of you believe nor is it as much of a loss as many gun grabbers seem to think. It will probably hit Chicago and maybe Hawaii and San Francisco. Beyond that, I read this as the high water mark.

It seems you may not be familiar with reading Supreme Court decisions -- he is not saying what you claim. He is merely saying that we haven't decided most of these other issues yet.

He said the things that were specific: No bazookas or wmd. felons can be denied, along with crazies. sensitive places like schools can have bans. The rest (almost all of it) is merely: Those things that are reasonable will be alright and those that are no will not, but we don't know much about that yet.

I firmly believe as soon as this decision is incorporated (which wasn't explicitly rule either) that every state is required to (to at least license on a shall issue basis) the carrying of firearms (at least one of openly or concealed.)

I don't think you can remove a right just because someone is out and about -- don't leave home without it.

Compelling state interest. 48 states allow concealed/open carry in some form. 40 shall issue. I believe xxxxx Wisconsin and Illinios have to rectify this as well as the other 8 who have "may -- if we feel like it -- issue" laws. (And the 2-3 may issue states that are ok have to clean up their act.)

I also believe the situation is ripe for challenging ANY failure to reciprocate with another states license under Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1, and the 14th Amendment. Figuring out a way to do that without becoming a "criminal" will be part of the trick.

HerbM wrote:48 states allow concealed/open carry in some form. 40 shall issue. I believe Michigan and Illinios have to rectify this

Wisconsin, not Michigan. Michigan has shall-issue.

- Jim

agbullet2k1 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Upon reflection, I agree with you. Heller did not ask to have registration declared unconstitutional, so SCOTUS did not rule on that issue.

- Jim

Exactly. Heller specifically said that he didn't have a problem with the registration as long as it was fair, so he essentially made it a non issue. Kudos to the judges for practicing judicial restraint, even if it does sting a bit. I'd actually rather see a lot of individual cases than one big one. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, and risk being Kennedied.

Bingo.

HELMKE:

Right. Court‘s basically said that that‘s going to be allowed. I mean, one of the things that Justice Scalia did, honed in on, is the right to a gun for self-defense in your own home.

Or any other lawful reason!

So that would probably be allowed under—under this reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Not "probably" mister, its a done deal!

The real issue here, though, is where you draw the line. If...

Pfffffft! Gun grabbers NEVER "draw the line". It's always more and more and more.



HELMKE:

Right to carry states are 48 of the 50 states right now. I mean, that‘s a battle that‘s been talked about.

Guess they'll have to find something else to talk about now.

The problem here is we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns.

Huh? Who is this "we" they are talking about?

It‘s—we have too few gun laws out there.

This has got to be my all time favorite. "Too few gun laws"! If you take into consideration all the laws at Federal, State and Local levels...they number into the thousands. What we have "too few" of...is proactive gun owners willing to stand up and fight for their rights!

I think I‘m willing to say mission accomplished to Wayne.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "Wayne" already knows!

You guys can start doing gun training...

Here's an clue for you Helmke: "We have been"!

flintknapper wrote:

The problem here is we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns.

Huh? Who is this "we" they are talking about?

By "we" he includes himself. The others probably include fellow travelers who work hard to get career criminals back on the streets.

Herbm,

I am a lawyer who has been involved in trying cases before the Supreme Court. I have won and lost there. I also have had a law that I wrote in Missouri upheld by the Supreme Court. I think I know how to read Supreme Court opinions.

stroo wrote:Herbm,

I am a lawyer who has been involved in trying cases before the Supreme Court. I have won and lost there. I also have had a law that I wrote in Missouri upheld by the Supreme Court. I think I know how to read Supreme Court opinions.

Majority Opinion DC v Heller, page 8:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Ok, then given that you have some experience, what is going to happen the first time some previously unconvicted (not a Federally prohibted) adult DC resident drug dealer who can afford the best lawyer gets charged?

Individual (natural) right, just like the 1st and 4th Amendments provide, not based on military service, protecting the right to all bearable arm!


It will either be an honest RKBA activist citizen or a drug dealer/gang leader but it will happen, and that wording could not be much clearer. All the "what might" happen language won't touch this clear declaration AS LONG AS the composition of the Court remains unchanged for the worse.

I think they messed up the "sensitive places" by using schools (an undefensible example) as the example. They should have used "jails and prisons" but I think this was mere ignorance and the language isn't binding like that above.

And it isn't going to work that your "right" ends when you walk out the door of your home. Nor the registration thing either -- FOPA might even be sufficient defense against that. The Firearms Owners Protection Act forbids (Federal) government registries. Oops.

First, anyone who knows exactly what a court is going to do in any subsequent case is smoking something. All anyone can do is make educated guesses. My educated guess is that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated and applied to the States. Consequently the Chicago ban is likely to fall as well as Hawaii. There are number of restrictions that if attacked are likely to be upheld by the courts including those explicitly named by the court in the dicta I cited and other similar ones, like the 1934 Act, limitations on magazine size, gun registration and a new AWB. Depending on who is elected president this fall and how bad the Supreme Court appointments are whether by McCain or Obama, the composition of the Court could easily turn liberal. If that happens, they will use Scalia's dicta to drive through almost every restriction you can think of beyond possessing a gun in your home.

Second, I can't answer your hypothetical because you didn't tell me for what the person was arrested. If they were arrested for carrying outside the home, concealed or open, my guess is they will be convicted and that conviction will be upheld. But given the court's dicta and incorporation of the right to self defense, if the next appointment shores up the conservative majority on the Court, maybe the conviction would be overturned and a right to carry recognized under the 2nd Amendment. I wouldn't count on it though.
If they were arrested for having a semi-automatic pistol in the home with only one magazine of ammo, my guess is any conviction would be overturned. Frankly however, I wouldn't use a drug dealer to test that law. It increases the chances that we lose.

I also had cases before Scalia many years ago when he was on the DC Circuit. He is the best judge I have ever been in front of bar none. He always takes the time to understand both the facts and the legal arguments. He is the most intelligent judge I have also ever been before. If I could have picked the justice to write this opinion, it would have been Scalia. Therefore it really worries me when he puts in dicta like the language I cited. I can only conclude that Scalia put in that dicta to pick up at least one vote, probably Kennedy's. Therefore if the composition of the Court does not change and one of the examples given in the dicta goes up to the Court, I would fully expect at least a 5-4 decision upholding the restriction.

I hope your optimism proves right. However I don't share it.

stroo wrote:First, anyone who knows exactly what a court is going to do in any subsequent case is smoking something. All anyone can do is make educated guesses. My educated guess is that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated and applied to the States. Consequently the Chicago ban is likely to fall as well as Hawaii. There are number of restrictions that if attacked are likely to be upheld by the courts including those explicitly named by the court in the dicta I cited and other similar ones, like the 1934 Act, limitations on magazine size, gun registration and a new AWB. Depending on who is elected president this fall and how bad the Supreme Court appointments are whether by McCain or Obama, the composition of the Court could easily turn liberal. If that happens, they will use Scalia's dicta to drive through almost every restriction you can think of beyond possessing a gun in your home.

Second, I can't answer your hypothetical because you didn't tell me for what the person was arrested. If they were arrested for carrying outside the home, concealed or open, my guess is they will be convicted and that conviction will be upheld. But given the court's dicta and incorporation of the right to self defense, if the next appointment shores up the conservative majority on the Court, maybe the conviction would be overturned and a right to carry recognized under the 2nd Amendment. I wouldn't count on it though.
If they were arrested for having a semi-automatic pistol in the home with only one magazine of ammo, my guess is any conviction would be overturned. Frankly however, I wouldn't use a drug dealer to test that law. It increases the chances that we lose.

I also had cases before Scalia many years ago when he was on the DC Circuit. He is the best judge I have ever been in front of bar none. He always takes the time to understand both the facts and the legal arguments. He is the most intelligent judge I have also ever been before. If I could have picked the justice to write this opinion, it would have been Scalia. Therefore it really worries me when he puts in dicta like the language I cited. I can only conclude that Scalia put in that dicta to pick up at least one vote, probably Kennedy's. Therefore if the composition of the Court does not change and one of the examples given in the dicta goes up to the Court, I would fully expect at least a 5-4 decision upholding the restriction.

I hope your optimism proves right. However I don't share it.

At least Scalia is not of retiring age (for a supreme court judge, or pope) and he'll be there for future gun rulings, if McCain gets elected we'll hopefully see some more conservative-ish judges (democrat congress, and the fact he's not a real conservative) though as long as he doesn't put a liberal judge on there I'll be happy enough as long as they're conservative-centrist. If Obama gets elected, just pray that the 4 conservatives decide to stay on for another 4/8 years.

Well, back up there Hoss.

What Helmke MEANS by "Police sign off" is that he wants police to be able to deny permits for whatever reason they want to.

Shall-issue does not fall into the purview of what he considers acceptable, unless he's changed his position. (Which who knows, is possible, maybe even likely.)

nitrogen wrote:Well, back up there Hoss.

What Helmke MEANS by "Police sign off" is that he wants police to be able to deny permits for whatever reason they want to.

Shall-issue does not fall into the purview of what he considers acceptable, unless he's changed his position. (Which who knows, is possible, maybe even likely.)

Yes, have you seen the form and the rules that come with it yet? I posted that and links in another thread, one of the one that has DC in the subject line.

Revolvers only, take a written test, an eye test, pay money etc. You have to read it to see how picky they are being.

It is MUCH harder than the CHL/CCW in most states -- and we are talking about for THE HOME only.