This is a discussion on Will USSC 2A decision facilitate reciprocity laws? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Just curious how many think the terrific USSC decision will facilitate (or even force) reciprocity agreements between additional states? I live in New England and ...
Just curious how many think the terrific USSC decision will facilitate (or even force) reciprocity agreements between additional states?
I live in New England and it's a real PITA to cross state lines while CCW. The laws are complex and confusing, plus the state lines are very close, so it's easy to have to cross a state line while driving somewhere.
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
I don't think any impact results, since reciprocity is a function of state law.
No but this is a real victory for us
Yeah, I'm pretty happy about Heller but they DID NOT incorporate it under the 14th Amendment which in essence only guarantees the right under the Bill of Rights insofar as the Federal Government is concerned. Basically it does not overturn the 20,000 local and state gun laws that still ban weapons in cities like Morton Grove, IL. The reason that NRA is launching all these lawsuits right now is to drain the antis of cash that they could use in the general election on behalf of OBAMANATION.
Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; NRA Endowment Life; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.
The 2nd ammendment is very clearly stated. DC was clearly in violation. That's all they needed to say. As far as I can tell from scotusblog.com, the court only really upheld the right of a non-felon to keep a handgun or musket in their home after going through some registration process.
SCOTUSblog » Heller quotes from the majority - opinion is linked in the next post
Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. (48, footnote 23)We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. 307 U. S., at 179.I can't get too excited about that. I still need to read the whole thing, but I'm not excited. And this business of people claiming the 2nd ammendment was not an individual right... well, those people were either stupid or pretending to be."Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
CC do not carry for a confrontation, they cary for self defense / self preservation. A play on words, possibly.
In any way could this ruling negate a states ability to deny CC?
The exposure that this ruling gets will be good for us in the long. Some of our citizens could care less one way or another about guns but because of the coverage that we'll have in the next few days some might actually act on this right and now feel comfortable in owning a handgun.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
Here is my take on Heller;
It could have been better. It could have been worse. What is says is that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, at least in the context of self defense and that the DC gun ban violated that right. But the DC ban was one of the most extreme gun control laws in the country. That is one reason it was chosen for a test case. DC is also a federal city and not a state. That is another reason it was chosen.
The first unanswered question is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. It may be unlawful for the federal government to ban guns, but that does not mean it is unlawful for a state to do so.The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states when adopted. The 14th Amendment, intended to protect newly freed slaves, that says, in part "...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Over time, that has come to be understood to mean most of the rights in the Bill of Rights. Naturally, there has never been a 2nd Amendment case on this.
The second question is how closely is this right recognized in Heller is tied to self defense. In Heller, the case is all about people who want a handgun in the house for protection against the populous of D.C. Frankly, I would want a couple of black rifles, some riot guns, and explosive devices. But is this right going to apply to firearms in situations that do not involve personal security, such as shooting skeet, or quail, or IDPA?
The third question is how much regulation of firearms is permissible. Dicta in the case provide that the decision does not upset long standing restrictions preventing criminals and lunatics from owning guns nor does it affect restrictions on firearms in places like government buildings and schools. Okay, but how far does that go. I am not an advocate for armed lunatics, but it is entirely possible to create restrictions that have the effect of effect of banning guns, even if they do not expressly do so. Imagine a law that says no gun can be brought within a thousand yards of any school, church, government office, day care center or medical treatment facility. Then try to figure out how you would get your 1911 from your house to the range.
The fourth question is what level of scrutiny the courts should apply to restrictions of 2nd Amendment rights. Will it be the "strict scrutiny" that is used in most 1st Amendment cases or a lesser level? The Supreme Court has three levels that is uses in various types of cases. Almost no restriction passes the highest level. Almost nothing fails the lowest level. So this is pretty important.
I think that the decision is good, but there is still lots of room for the anti-gunners to maneuver. And future Supreme Courts can justify all kinds of restrictions within the framework Heller creates. Obama should get two appointments, maybe three. The next decision may not be so well received by the NRA.
Dieu et les Dames
I don't believe the second amendment is "State by State". I think this is far reaching into the "Individual right" and precludes states from it as well. It establishes a "pre existing individual right". And then it clarifies what State really means in the context of this right.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely under-
stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”16
b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or com-
this is all quite huge. It not only declares it is an individual right to not only own but to carry for purposes of defense but it establishes it as a universal right of all. Everywhere.
Agreed, but the reciprocity statutes are an animal of state law.I don't believe the second amendment is "State by State".
Although it is a good and right opinion, it is not huge in any sense other than it overturns DC's complete gun ban.