Heller and "Shall Issue"...???

Heller and "Shall Issue"...???

This is a discussion on Heller and "Shall Issue"...??? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I've read the opinion and have been following the discussions here about it. One thing I have not really seen anything on is the ideal ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Heller and "Shall Issue"...???

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array gddyup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Derry, NH
    Posts
    988

    Heller and "Shall Issue"...???

    I've read the opinion and have been following the discussions here about it. One thing I have not really seen anything on is the ideal of "shall issue" now that Heller has been decided. In reading the majority opinion, it would seem to me that there is a very defensible case for "shall issue" in states where there is now only "may issue". Scalia makes it very pointed that Heller MUST be issued a permit if he is not disqualified for any "normal" reason, IE. felon, Domestic, etc.

    If I read the decision properly, this is exactly what is stated. Now, if Heller must be issued a permit, would that not be a limitation that could be challenged in a may issue state? Or is the fact that the decision pertaining to "in the home" pursuent to Heller accepting such a permit "for defense of the home" only, make that an issue that could not be challenged in a state such as MA, where the local CLEO has say over who gets a permit for a firearm and who doesn't?

    I'm no scholar nor have I ever played one on tv, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I am certainly interested in what some of my fellow DC.com erudites have to say about this.

    Please... Discuss.
    Firefighter/EMT
    "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.

    <----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I'd say you are pretty much right on. I think 'shall issue' if not disqualified will be one of the consequences of the Heller Case. It will take some time and several court cases to decide.

    The worst thing that could happen for us, is for us to flood the court system with cases. We should pick and choose, and be just as careful as Heller to pick away at one piece at a time. The Brady Campaign wanted D.C. to strike down the ban and forgo the Supreme Court Ruling. They felt that Heller's case was so narrow and so good that they didn't have a chance of winning. If Heller has instead sued to be able to carry a machine gun anywhere he wanted without registration, we would have gotten a much different ruling.

    Since the 2nd has been eroded so much, we need to pick and choose are battles carefully until we get on a little stronger footing.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ExactlyMyPoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,980
    That may be true, but I think they are only going to do it kicking and screaming. And should you use your gun in self defense, they are going to come down hard on you. The battle is far from over.
    Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or Rapture....whichever comes first.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,807
    I read it the same way. "Shall issue" is a travesty that's bent all out of proportion in many places where it's implemented. It presupposes that some people in one place are specifically more honorable and worthy of self-defense than folks from another place. The 14A requires equal protection under the law. If the 2A case law now incorporates a requirement to allow folks to own, transport and use a firearm, it should absolutely apply to all citizens.

    As for licensing to carry, we'll see. Carry of a firearm in public is something completely different. There's nothing in Heller that makes me believe that will change soon. Come Heller high water, though, it will happen at some point. The system simply cannot forever withstand its inconsistencies. We'll get there.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Yep, I agree it'll be trickier to make IL,DC,and WI(although I think WI will be going to shall-issue sooner rather than later) all of a sudden start issuing permits because of Heller.
    I think a good legal challenge to the "discretionary,AKA security/wealthy/politically connected issue," states are on shaky ground w/the 14th amendment.
    If one can prove permits were issued to political connections to those with background problems, Joe Blow clean background being denied, this might blow the door wide open, since "public safety," is always the reason they state for rarely issuing permits.
    "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

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array bluelineman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    854
    They may be "shall issue" for having a gun in your home, but that has nothing to do with CCW. Also, they will regulate/license to the teeth. The DC police chief has already come out saying that semi autos will not be legal to license in DC.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array Shizzlemah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    723
    Heller had nothing to do with CCW, it was simply about ownership. It said a person could own one single revolver (sorry, the decision didn't comment on autos).

    This could have an impact in places like SF, Chicago, NYC, and MA but only in the extent of buying a handgun and keeping it in the home.


    Logically speaking (not SCOTUS, just logic!) if you can own it, you should be able to carry it. What else do you own that you are not allowed to carry about and have ready? Nobody would care if I carried a blender, a spare tire, or a toilet plunger.

    However, the supreme court only can comment on the question brought before it - which was ownership of ONE SINGLE REVOLVER.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Shizzlemah View Post
    Heller had nothing to do with CCW, it was simply about ownership.
    True. And yet, the Heller decision specifically indicated that everyone had the right to defense via an non-disabled firearm that was ready to be used should the need arise. The thing of it is, that need for defense doesn't stop at one's front doorstep. It exists at all times.

    So, based on this, I believe that in the long run we'll see greater sanity come to the interpretation, possibly to the point of ultimate simplification: shall not be infringed ... period. We'll see.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array gddyup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Derry, NH
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Shizzlemah View Post
    However, the supreme court only can comment on the question brought before it - which was ownership of ONE SINGLE REVOLVER.
    In searching the document, nowhere can I find in the opinion that a revolver is the only classified arm represented in the decision. I'm guessing that Heller actually owns a revolver and that's where the idea comes from?

    In sum, we hold that the Districtís ban on handgun
    possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
    as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
    in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
    self-defense. 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.
    If this is the case, I fail to see how DC could not allow semi-auto pistols since they are certainly a weapon in "common usage". Smells like another lawsuit...

    With the "shall issue" part, I was thinking not necesairly LTC, but something like MA that still deals in FID cards. You need an LTC-B in order to buy a handgun in MA I believe. An FID only allows you to purchase and keep/bear a long arm. Any of those licenses are at the discretion of the local CLEO. The decision states that DC MUST give Heller a permit to have a handgun in his home. In MA, you need an LTC-B in order to purchase a handgun, which in essence is a license to carry. This is the area I was thinking and wondering about. I'm curious to see how that works out if my info is correct.
    Firefighter/EMT
    "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.

    <----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,895
    DC officials, and frankly officialdom everywhere (well in the strict states and cities) are going to do absolutely everything they can to weasel out of their obligations to follow the law; which is now actually pretty clear except to those who refuse to read and understand.

    Hence, DC will claim the ruling only applies to revolvers; only to the home, and other places will claim the ruling applies only to DC.

    What we are seeing is a form of "anarchy" and widespread disobedience. It is as if SC rulings were "advisory" and not a statement of what the law means.

    As I wrote in another thread, very strange stuff is going on here.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array Shizzlemah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    723
    In searching the document, nowhere can I find in the opinion that a revolver is the only classified arm represented in the decision. I'm guessing that Heller actually owns a revolver and that's where the idea comes from?
    The revolver-only is a DC rule. Apparently up till '76 you could only register revolvers. I have no idea as to the logic behind that.

    Does that mean now BGs will be moving in groups of 7 or more? *lol*


    As to MA, this would be akin to forcing a rubber stamp on the "permit to purchase", allowing you to buy and own a handgun (no transport though) without a CCW. But I don't know if that permit to purchase still exists after the big FID/CCW changeover.

    When I applied for my permit to purchase in 1992 (?) the cops told me to just go for the CCW since the background check is the same and they'd rather not have to keep processing my apps on a gun by gun basis.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,060
    The revolver thing is that semi autos ( at least those having removable magazines) are "machine guns" under D.C. law. In theory if you had an old mauser c-96 you would be ok. Anything capable of firing 12 or more shots without reloading in D.C. is a machine gun.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    DC officials, and frankly officialdom everywhere (well in the strict states and cities) are going to do absolutely everything they can to weasel out of their obligations to follow the law; which is now actually pretty clear except to those who refuse to read and understand.

    Hence, DC will claim the ruling only applies to revolvers; only to the home, and other places will claim the ruling applies only to DC.

    What we are seeing is a form of "anarchy" and widespread disobedience. It is as if SC rulings were "advisory" and not a statement of what the law means.

    As I wrote in another thread, very strange stuff is going on here.
    That's exactly what the weasals are going to try. They'll continue to throw up every impediment they can. It's going to take still more cases to continue the progress. Heller is just the first step, but it's a giant step that makes victory in subsequent cases not just possible, but probable. If individuals had no rights under the second amendment, the point could very well be moot.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  14. #14
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What we are seeing is a form of "anarchy" and widespread disobedience. It is as if SC rulings were "advisory" and not a statement of what the law means.

    As I wrote in another thread, very strange stuff is going on here.
    The Court does not rule. They render opinions. It is not advisory in any sense. They made their decision and it is up to the other branches of government to not enforce the law or rewrite the law as they see fit based on an opinion.

    The Supreme Court opinion is not the law of the land.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array gddyup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Derry, NH
    Posts
    988
    Firefighter/EMT
    "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.

    <----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting in Detroit / 2nd issue "full-auto"
    By Thanis in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  2. My question promoting fair concealed carry issue in "Ask CA Gov re: budget crisis"
    By cyberdogg in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 04:40 PM
  3. "Issue isn't gun rights" -- "right for churches to set their own rules"
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 15th, 2009, 12:36 PM
  4. Make "The Heller Bet" with an anti-gunner!
    By BlackPR in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 8th, 2008, 07:03 PM
  5. Shout out to the cops on "issue" firearms & ammo?
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 15th, 2007, 03:52 AM

Search tags for this page

heller may issue

Click on a term to search for related topics.