Now What?????

[Originalist]

Mr Cotton, I am interested in getting your take on the SCOTUS decision on the 2nd. In your opinion, where do you think this decision will lead us over the next couple of years? Anyone else out there that has anything to input, I am (and am sure others are to) interested in hearing opinions regarding this.
Bryan

[TEX]

It is good that the ruling fell to our side, but I do not think it is as big a win as some think. It will likely result in the destruction of DC similar gun bans and prevent further ones, but I do not see it knocking down anything significant as far as us getting back the ability to get silencers or full auto weapons without the hassle we presently have. It still does not change the carrying of firearms which the states control, nor do I see it eliminating assault weapons bans and limited capacity magazine laws in some states. It could perhaps, but it would take further laws suits using the recent court ruling as its back bone. It does send a message however – I am just not sure how strong of one. The sad part is that it could have gone the other way with only one vote. If that had happened, the gun banners would have figured it was open season on gun owners and in the end we would have been lucky to be able to own air rifles. Anyway, that is the way I see it. TEX

[HerbM]

It is good that the ruling fell to our side, but I do not think it is as big a win as some think. It will likely result in the destruction of DC similar gun bans and prevent further ones, but I do not see it knocking down anything significant as far as us getting back the ability to get silencers or full auto weapons without the hassle we presently have. It still does not change the carrying of firearms which the states control, nor do I see it eliminating assault weapons bans and limited capacity magazine laws in some states. It could perhaps, but it would take further laws suits using the recent court ruling as its back bone. It does send a message however – I am just not sure how strong of one. The sad part is that it could have gone the other way with only one vote. If that had happened, the gun banners would have figured it was open season on gun owners and in the end we would have been lucky to be able to own air rifles. Anyway, that is the way I see it. TEX

It's going to take out the Gun Ban in SF public housing pretty quickly -- a gay guy is suing with the help of the NRA and the CCRKBA.

It's a right. They'll lose even if it has to go back to the Supreme Court.

You might want to review some of the ongoing threads on the topic, but simple: the more I read DC v Heller the better I like it. Scalia is proving to be a crafty fox. Remember you must read what he SAYS and not what he hints or implies, including this gem:

By this decision automatic rifles are ok. The "militia phrase" sets the context that requires AT LEAST the protection of those arms normally issued to the individual infrantryman or the (paramilitary) police officer as I have long claimed.

It's right there in the opinion too:

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.>>

prima facie...All bearable arms.

I think that Justice Scalia might have just SLIPPED that by. There is no quibble there. That is without qualification.

And there is plenty more.

I only have one serious quibble: "sensitive places" (e.g., government buildings and schools) -- he hints these might be acceptable places to limit firearms, but it would be quite easy to build the opposite case based on actual efficacy of such bans as they FAIL when no controlled access point is used.

Teachers should not lose their rights by showing up to work. But there is a LOT of good stuff here.

[KBCraig]

I only have one serious quibble: "sensitive places" (e.g., government buildings and schools) -- he hints these might be acceptable places to limit firearms, but it would be quite easy to build the opposite case based on actual efficacy of such bans as they FAIL when no controlled access point is used.

I didn't care for the language, but this might be another case of weasel language inserted to bring Kennedy aboard.

The proper philosophy is what we enjoy in Texas: "government" property is owned by the people, and the owners enjoy the same right to carry there that they do in their own homes. (Well, not quite, but it would be a good argument that unlicensed and/or open carry is acceptable on public property. )

[jimlongley]

Considering the dearth of commentary from our own top moderator and sponsor, I wonder if he's involved in some of the new litigation, or just busy trying to read and digest the decision.

I tend to think a little like TEX, but also like HerbM, I have a feeling that there was a great deal of crafty machination that went into the untimately released decision, but until the smoke clears and the new lawsuits work their way up to the Supremes' level we have a lot of second guessing to do.

I am encouraged by Wilmette Illinois' rapid recision of their gun ban, and would dearly love to see Morton Grove, Chicago, and whatever other cities sensibly follow suit, saving their taxpayers the money and stress of going through an unnecessary process, but given that Morton Grove already won a suit against their law based on the Second Amendment I don't expect that to happen soon.

I also expect that NY and other restrictive states will resist change based on the decision language that they will say allows them to have draconian licensing schemes, just as long as some have licenses.

I don't think we will see silencers legalized any time soon, although real assault weapons, being "bearable" should be.

[HerbM]

I only have one serious quibble: "sensitive places" (e.g., government buildings and schools) -- he hints these might be acceptable places to limit firearms, but it would be quite easy to build the opposite case based on actual efficacy of such bans as they FAIL when no controlled access point is used.

I didn't care for the language, but this might be another case of weasel language inserted to bring Kennedy aboard.

The proper philosophy is what we enjoy in Texas: "government" property is owned by the people, and the owners enjoy the same right to carry there that they do in their own homes. (Well, not quite, but it would be a good argument that unlicensed and/or open carry is acceptable on public property. )

I still don't think of this as "weasel language" but we generally agree here. There are however many restricted places that are not defensible by the evidence.

Schools for one, especially schools without controlled access, and more especially universities and colleges.

I have long asserted that any prohibited place should be required to provide security of the following form:

1) Armed guard check points that use searches or xray to ensure no arms are brought into the facility
2) Guarded Lockup storage "check rooms" for leaving a firearm during a visit
3) Enforcement on ALL visitors, including police who are not part of the security of the facility
4) An essential safety reason

An example of a place that could generally pass this would be a prison, where even visiting police must deposit firearms in a secure storage area.

Note, failure to enforce this rule #3 would be evidence that #4i was not true.

I would insist these requirements be placed on every 30.06 sign, certainly on those where public entry is generally allowed. (Only exceptions for homes and such might be acceptable.)

We all know that any "imaginary no guns allowed line" is an open invitation to a psychopath who is seeking a gun free victim zone.

[KBCraig]

I am encouraged by Wilmette Illinois' rapid recision of their gun ban, and would dearly love to see Morton Grove, Chicago, and whatever other cities sensibly follow suit

Morton Grove already has.

They were the ones who started the whole handgun-banning craze in the first place.

[HerbM]

I am encouraged by Wilmette Illinois' rapid recision of their gun ban, and would dearly love to see Morton Grove, Chicago, and whatever other cities sensibly follow suit

Morton Grove already has.

They were the ones who started the whole handgun-banning craze in the first place.

Great news (that I had not previously heard, i.e., Morton Grove). That makes two: Wilmette and Morton Grove have both indicated suspension of their bans. My guess is they will let Chicago fight it on its own rather than spending their money and reputation on a loser if Chicago can't win.

Evanston and Oak Park are also being sued (along with Morton Grove) -- we'll see if they opt out of the ban and the suit too....

Evanston (will study ruling)
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/ne ... s1.article

[boomerang]

I still don't think of this as "weasel language" but we generally agree here. There are however many restricted places that are not defensible by the evidence.

Schools for one, especially schools without controlled access, and more especially universities and colleges.

If the government allows off duty cops to carry in schools, 51% establishments and sporting events, and allows off duty judges with CHLs to carry in those places, there's no legitimate reason not to allow off duty brain surgeons with CHLs from carrying in those places.

Arbitrary and capricious.

[57Coastie]

Mr Cotton, I am interested in getting your take on the SCOTUS decision on the 2nd. In your opinion, where do you think this decision will lead us over the next couple of years? Anyone else out there that has anything to input, I am (and am sure others are to) interested in hearing opinions regarding this.
Bryan

Yours is, of course, the most important question. I think you can find many often conflicting analyses and opinions on at least three other threads here on the forum, and I doubt that you will see them all repeated here on this thread in an effort to respond to you. Altogelther they should give you much you can use to base your personal opinion on.

In my personal opinion the most important question to resolve initially is whether the Heller decision is Constitutionally required to be applied to the 50 states, then we can move on to the myriad issues left open by the Supremes. That question may have to be squarely framed and brought to the Supreme Court to be finally decided, and recall the years and years which passed before Mr. Heller got before the Court. It may never go to the Supremes if all the circuit courts of appeal agree on the answer, but that just may be asking for too much.

I suspect that our wise Mr. Cotton may just be sitting back and lurking for a while, before possibly disrupting our debate with the common perception that he knows all things. I do not imply that he does not, but the respect he has from all quarters may not encourage a meaningful debate if he intervenes too early.

Jim

[Bart]

What's the difference between DC police not allowing citizens to register new handguns after 1976 and ATF not allowing citizens to register new machineguns after 1986?

[57Coastie]

What's the difference between DC police not allowing citizens to register new handguns after 1976 and ATF not allowing citizens to register new machineguns after 1986?

If I understand the question correctly, and that is not certain, then I would suggest that the difference is the difference between handguns and machineguns.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

Reasonable restriction???

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

I've noticed that the lawyers tend to stay out of the "what if" legal discussions. Probably with good reason.

[57Coastie]

I've noticed that the lawyers tend to stay out of the "what if" legal discussions. Probably with good reason.

Byron -- you don't expect lawyers to start giving out free opinions, do you?

Happy 4th of July to all,

Jm