Interesting legal analysis: 2nd Amendment after Heller/McDonald

mrerick · 08-09-2012, 07:01 PM

This monograph:

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cg...text=lawreview

Has an interesting discussion of the right to bear arms after the Heller (Wash DC) and McDonald (Chicago) decisions.

It points out the strategies that might be used to chip away at things, ultimately leading to more decision making at the supreme court level.

It's a reminder of how important 2nd Amendment respecting justices (at all levels) will be important to us in the near future.

Marc

calibrator · 08-09-2012, 09:54 PM

I read the first few sections, and the writer seems to be taking a neutral, well thought-out position. His position relies on fact, and not hysterical emotion that drives legislation in Progressive states.

I wish I could link to the latest revision of California's SB 249 legislation. If passed in this version it seems (from posters on calguns.net) that it seems to have wording that would lead to banning of all firearms in Cali, no Grandfathered items or compensation for loss of previously owned items. The discussion there seems quite dismal considering the political majority there.

If certain types of arms (Mag fed, semiauto) are outlawed, what type of exemption will Lugers enjoy?

lugerholsterrepair · 08-10-2012, 11:17 AM

If certain types of arms (Mag fed, semiauto) are outlawed..there will be war.

mrerick · 08-10-2012, 04:30 PM

Joe,

I think that this is California's listing for the SB-249 legislation:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...b_249&sess=CUR

with the most recent version PDF: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ed_asm_v93.pdf

It certainly seems one of the "Cosmetic Feature" based attempts to limit 2nd amendment rights that the law review article was discussing.

We'll likely see more of this activity, which will eventually bubble up to Supreme Court evaluation.

Marc

calibrator · 08-10-2012, 07:55 PM

I was thinking about this today at the gym. I live in AZ, and am not affected by it. My question to anyone who knows the answer to is this; here in AZ the State just approved a bill titled SB 1070 that gave LEOS more direction when encountering Illegal Immigrants in the course of their duties. Since the majority of the Illegals here are Mexican, this is somehow seen as discrimination and the Feds sue the state to overturn this, stating that Immigration is a Federal issue.

How is it then, that The State of California can create laws (for decades before SB 249) that differ from the Federal statutes regarding 2nd Amendment issues and not be sued in a similar manner by the Feds? The ATF controls NFA items and it also sets the standards for what configurations of arms are NOT legal for citizens to own without their approval. Cali seems to be over-ruling the Feds here.

Curly1 · 08-11-2012, 12:31 AM

It would seem that the feds pick the battles they want to fight.

Probably more Hispanic voters nation wide than gun owners in California.

08-09-2012, 07:01 PM	#1
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,920 Thanks: 1,377 Thanked 3,135 Times in 1,518 Posts	Interesting legal analysis: 2nd Amendment after Heller/McDonald This monograph: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cg...text=lawreview Has an interesting discussion of the right to bear arms after the Heller (Wash DC) and McDonald (Chicago) decisions. It points out the strategies that might be used to chip away at things, ultimately leading to more decision making at the supreme court level. It's a reminder of how important 2nd Amendment respecting justices (at all levels) will be important to us in the near future. Marc __________________ Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum - - Therefore if you want peace, prepare for war.

08-10-2012, 11:17 AM	#3
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,775 Thanks: 4,995 Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,439 Posts	If certain types of arms (Mag fed, semiauto) are outlawed..there will be war. __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."

08-10-2012, 04:30 PM	#4
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,920 Thanks: 1,377 Thanked 3,135 Times in 1,518 Posts	Joe, I think that this is California's listing for the SB-249 legislation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...b_249&sess=CUR with the most recent version PDF: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ed_asm_v93.pdf It certainly seems one of the "Cosmetic Feature" based attempts to limit 2nd amendment rights that the law review article was discussing. We'll likely see more of this activity, which will eventually bubble up to Supreme Court evaluation. Marc __________________ Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum - - Therefore if you want peace, prepare for war.

08-11-2012, 12:31 AM	#6
Curly1 User Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 1,247 Thanks: 125 Thanked 717 Times in 374 Posts	It would seem that the feds pick the battles they want to fight. Probably more Hispanic voters nation wide than gun owners in California. __________________ Laugh hard and often. Gary

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-09-2012, 09:54 PM	#2
calibrator User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cave Creek Posts: 315 Thanks: 55 Thanked 244 Times in 93 Posts	I read the first few sections, and the writer seems to be taking a neutral, well thought-out position. His position relies on fact, and not hysterical emotion that drives legislation in Progressive states. I wish I could link to the latest revision of California's SB 249 legislation. If passed in this version it seems (from posters on calguns.net) that it seems to have wording that would lead to banning of all firearms in Cali, no Grandfathered items or compensation for loss of previously owned items. The discussion there seems quite dismal considering the political majority there. If certain types of arms (Mag fed, semiauto) are outlawed, what type of exemption will Lugers enjoy?

08-10-2012, 07:55 PM	#5
calibrator User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cave Creek Posts: 315 Thanks: 55 Thanked 244 Times in 93 Posts	I was thinking about this today at the gym. I live in AZ, and am not affected by it. My question to anyone who knows the answer to is this; here in AZ the State just approved a bill titled SB 1070 that gave LEOS more direction when encountering Illegal Immigrants in the course of their duties. Since the majority of the Illegals here are Mexican, this is somehow seen as discrimination and the Feds sue the state to overturn this, stating that Immigration is a Federal issue. How is it then, that The State of California can create laws (for decades before SB 249) that differ from the Federal statutes regarding 2nd Amendment issues and not be sued in a similar manner by the Feds? The ATF controls NFA items and it also sets the standards for what configurations of arms are NOT legal for citizens to own without their approval. Cali seems to be over-ruling the Feds here.