Heller and "Shall Issue"...??? - Page 2

Shizzlemah · July 6th, 2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

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.

mcp1810 · July 7th, 2008, 07:15 PM

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.

rodc13 · July 7th, 2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

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.

SelfDefense · July 7th, 2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

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.

gddyup · July 7th, 2008, 10:42 PM

Speaking of shall issue and the revolver vs. semi-auto, this tid-bit popped up on foxnews.com this afternoon....

FOXNews.com - D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

mcp1810 · July 7th, 2008, 11:44 PM

I think the wording of Heller is significant in that the majority does not specifically limit this right to the home. I believe the phrase was "such as the home". IANAL but it seems to me that opens the door to challenging "may issue" in places like Maryland. What we need is someone of good standing to get denied a carry permit and file suit. If "keeping" and "bearing" are both protected as this court seems to have stated ( they do mention restrictions on sensitive locations ) we just need someone that has grounds to file!

Kerbouchard · July 7th, 2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcp1810

I think the wording of Heller is significant in that the majority does not specifically limit this right to the home. I believe the phrase was "such as the home". IANAL but it seems to me that opens the door to challenging "may issue" in places like Maryland. What we need is someone of good standing to get denied a carry permit and file suit. If "keeping" and "bearing" are both protected as this court seems to have stated ( they do mention restrictions on sensitive locations ) we just need someone that has grounds to file!

Scalia specifically declined to comment on 'registration' or 'outside the home' because of Heller's specific case. He also said there would be plenty of time for cases in the future to exactly define the limitations. The fact that he 'ordered' the District to issue the license unless Heller was otherwise disqualified speaks volumes for a 'shall issue' case in the future. It will come, but I agree. We do need a person of good standing to be denied, and I hope he prepares his case well and does not try to make a broad change. Heller and his attorney were spot on. 'Gun Control' has been something that has chipped away at our civil liberties, and we need to 'chip' back. This isn't something we can do with a sledge hammer; but rather a sculptor's chisel. If you hit the right spot, the rest of it falls apart, but you can't just go swinging away.

gddyup · July 8th, 2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Scalia specifically declined to comment on 'registration' or 'outside the home' because of Heller's specific case. He also said there would be plenty of time for cases in the future to exactly define the limitations. The fact that he 'ordered' the District to issue the license unless Heller was otherwise disqualified speaks volumes for a 'shall issue' case in the future. It will come, but I agree. We do need a person of good standing to be denied, and I hope he prepares his case well and does not try to make a broad change. Heller and his attorney were spot on. 'Gun Control' has been something that has chipped away at our civil liberties, and we need to 'chip' back. This isn't something we can do with a sledge hammer; but rather a sculptor's chisel. If you hit the right spot, the rest of it falls apart, but you can't just go swinging away.

You make a very good point. My overall impression of the opinion is that we have finally had a decent hit with our "chisel". Inasfar as shall issue and many other points that are faintly touched upon in the decision, all we need is a few more small taps in the right place with that "chisel" to bring down that wall.

Kerbouchard · July 8th, 2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gddyup

You make a very good point. My overall impression of the opinion is that we have finally had a decent hit with our "chisel". Inasfar as shall issue and many other points that are faintly touched upon in the decision, all we need is a few more small taps in the right place with that "chisel" to bring down that wall.

Exactly, but as D.C. and the Brady Campaign have learned, taking the wrong case can be disastrous to any cause.

July 7th, 2008, 07:15 PM	#12
mcp1810 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,106	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. __________________ "And what would you do with your brain if you had one?" - Dorothy

July 7th, 2008, 10:42 PM	#15
gddyup Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Derry, NH Posts: 896	Speaking of shall issue and the revolver vs. semi-auto, this tid-bit popped up on foxnews.com this afternoon.... FOXNews.com - D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down - Politics \| Republican Party \| Democratic Party \| Political Spectrum __________________ Firefighter/EMT My own piece of the web... The Right of Defense It is better to be the widow of a hero than the wife of a coward. - Dolores Ibarruri

July 7th, 2008, 11:44 PM	#16
mcp1810 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,106	I think the wording of Heller is significant in that the majority does not specifically limit this right to the home. I believe the phrase was "such as the home". IANAL but it seems to me that opens the door to challenging "may issue" in places like Maryland. What we need is someone of good standing to get denied a carry permit and file suit. If "keeping" and "bearing" are both protected as this court seems to have stated ( they do mention restrictions on sensitive locations ) we just need someone that has grounds to file! __________________ "And what would you do with your brain if you had one?" - Dorothy

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