Supreme Court extends gun rights again

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

SCOTUS has extended universal gun rights again, overriding the restrictive local ordinances in cities like Chicago, DC, NYC etc.

Restriction for specific venues can still exist, but the bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is confirmed to give all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms for defensive purposes.

[Technoid]

It's the wild wild US

[cjolley]

Actually all they said was that outright bans on ownership of any firearm are unconstitutional.
They explicitly stated that they weren't talking about regulations.
An avalanche of law suits is going to follow this for years as the question is fine tuned.

[Dr Mordrid]

The first feelers of what Chicago is planning came out yesterday: a one-per-person/per-house handgun limit and no gun stores in the city limits.

Methinks neither will stand up on review - the per-person limit because of the reasonable need for either a practice weapon that uses cheaper ammo (.22's are far cheaper than .40's or 9mm's) or hunting weapons of differing calibers based on the game (no, shooting rabbits with a .50 isn't 'reasonable' unless all you want is to collect the fur spray), and the store ban as an illegal restriction on interstate commerce by a municipality.

I think cities rights are going to end up in the area of limiting carrying in venues they control: city halls, city hospitals, schools etc. Things like CCW's and training for same, safety inspections, post-purchase ballistics, limits in non-city venues etc. will have to be done at the state level, just as they are now in carry states like Michigan.

Michigan and many other states are putting another wrinkle on things: updated interpretations of their gun carry laws are in and are the new view is that if one carries a weapon openly no concealed weapons permit is necessary - AT ALL.

That's right kiddies: open carry, Dodge City style, is becoming legal in a large number of states. Still a bit of an issue is if a person could be arrested for putting on their suit coat, but that'll resolve quickly IMO.

Michigan's cities are now in the process of changing their laws to reflect this change at the state level. A few council persons and mayors are making noise, but the vast majority are yawning.

[cjolley]

...
Methinks neither will stand up on review - ... or hunting weapons of differing calibers based on the game (no, shooting rabbits with a .50 isn't 'reasonable' unless all you want is to collect the fur spray)
...

It's pretty safe to say that they imparted no right of hunting AT ALL in any of this. They talked exclusively about self protection.

As to the other stuff, we'll see.

[Dr Mordrid]

Perhaps not, but given the states interest in the hunting revenues restrictions by cities will hit the wall there first.

[cjolley]

Perhaps not, but given the states interest in the hunting revenues restrictions by cities will hit the wall there first.

Your saying that gun laws will have to be identical in town and country, city and designated hunting area?
This I gotta see.

[Dr Mordrid]

They pretty much are already as far as CCW (state concealed carry), open carry (state again), purchase (federal) and state & federal exclusion zones; carrying in state and federal parklands etc., go.

What SCOTUS said was that cities can't supersede federal gun law jurisdictions and regulations, and the Constitution is the ultimate version of those. State constitutions are generally in line with that because otherwise you'd have cities requiring their own drivers licenses & car tags and other such state prerogatives.

Federally these cities violated a general federal law, the 2nd amendment, and the equal protection clause which says all federal freedoms must be applied everywhere equally - no more one rule in the city and another in the suburbs, or in a different state or city. There are similar guarantees in virtually all state constitutions.

What cities can regulate is setting up exclusion zones in city-owned venues and on city owned properties like parks, and even in the latter there is a gray area because if federal or state funds were used to build or maintain the park the higher jurisdictions rules would apply. This would also hold true for carrying a firearm in your car on a city street or bridge if federal or state highway funds were used to build or maintain it.

We had a situation like that in a city near us; the city fathers tried to say one of their parks was for city residents only and no one else could picnic or fish there. Problems: the park was built on city property, but with city, state and federal funds, the river was a designated trout and salmon stream, and even the fence and parking lots around it were built with state highway funds. Didn't last 5 minutes in court.

After the Heller decision that set this all up even the federal government had to change its laws: citizens are now allowed to carry on AMTRAK trains and in those federal parklands where previously they were not.

[cjolley]

So, the County Government building where I work must allow people to come in armed* because guns are allowed in national parks now?
Like I said, this I gotta see.



* Assuming some Federal or State (very likely) fund helped build it.

[Dr Mordrid]

No, certain venues will pass muster because of 'reasonability.' A state excluding certain state/county/city buildings, a county excluding certain county/city buildings, and a city excluding city buildings on security grounds is reasonable under federal law for obvious security, and even national security, reasons. Extra points for courthouses. Cities will run afoul of trying to cast this line upstream, though, because of the higher jurisdiction prevailing.

This business caused a huge problem a number of years ago when cities/states tried to create gun-free zones around schools, which of course impeded on the rights of gunowners within those zones. They too were tossed out by SCOTUS. That decision set the stage for later cases, including Heller.