gddyup

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

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

Kerbouchard

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.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

ExactlyMyPoint

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.

__________________
- Let me explain. No. There is not time. Let me summarize.
- Doing my part to create a huge carbon footprint
- Be still, and know that I am God; Psalms 46:10
- You are God and that's just the way it is; You Are God Alone sung by Phillips Craig And Dean

ccw9mm

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.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

press1280

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.

__________________
And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete

bluelineman

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.

__________________
Support the Wounded Troops
Medal of Honor Recipients, Iraq

Shizzlemah

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.

ccw9mm

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.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

gddyup

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?

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

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

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.