Posted on 06/30/2008 2:23:54 PM PDT by neverdem
It didn't take many calls over the weekend to leave us with the impression that Mayor Bloomberg is mistaken in his assertion that the Supreme Court's decision on the right to keep a gun is not going to have an impact on New York's regulation of guns. It is true that the Supreme Court ruled on only one case, ordering the District of Columbia to issue a permit to Dick Heller to enable him to keep his pistol in his home. But the interpretation that the court gave to the Second Amendment — that it is an individual, civil right — was so ringing that it immediately was greeted with lawsuits against the most restrictive jurisdictions in the country. These started with Chicago and San Francisco. It is hard to imagine that New York is not going to be the target of suits as well.
That is the outlook sketched in the adjacent columns by one of the savviest figures on the Second Amendment beat, Dave Kopel...
--snip--
One of the civil rights leaders in the vanguard of this struggle, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, reacted to Heller by saying: "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom." There is no reason why the freedom vouchsafed by the Second Amendment and New York State's own civil rights law — and affirmed by the Supreme Court last week — can't be enjoyed by the people of our city. They are as law abiding, as adult, as responsible, as American as the citizens of any other city and state where this civil right is taken as a matter of course. Heller is an occasion for our leaders to start treating their constituents as such.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The gun grabbers will be fighting the Heller ruling tooth and nail. You can count on that.
Well yeah, except for Gloomberg himself, that is.
The most egregious infringements will be challenged first. There are too many jurisdictions who have “unreasonable restrictions.”
Liberals never see the law as applying to them (New Yorker Bloomberg) They see the law only as a tool with which they can force others to do as they say not as they do.........
IMO, the key fight now will be over the "arbitrary and capricious" issuances of permits.
Self-defense is not a, but the fundamental civil right. And to attempt to deny it to citizens for their own good is an act of despotism.
NYs Sullivan Law was written by a corrupt, Tammany Hall Democrat. Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile. Whether this was part of the law’s intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against “undesirable” elements. Sponsor “Big Tim” Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
Just like may issue CCW today is for friends and contributors of the local sheriff.
I think this will end up being a standard of whether the regulations are “prohibitive”.
A regulation designed so that only adults might not be deemed “prohibitive”. A regulation so that if a gun gets used in a crime, it can be traced, might not be either.
But a regulation that says only one armed men can have a handgun clearly is.
So the burden of proof - proof that someone shouldn’t have a gun - is now clearly on the regulators.
It allows the arbitrary denial of permits by any County Sheriff for any reason they choose.
Now that ownership is an Individual Right, it would stand to reason that the granting of permits must not "discriminate" for any reason. Equal protection of an Individual Right.
This may force CA to outlaw Concealed Carry Permits...or apply a universal Statewide Standard.
If outlawed entirely in CA, that too could fall under the 4th Amendment as other states are "Shall Issue" states.
Freeper thoughts?
What they are attempting to do in the immediate aftermath is water down the judgement and its implications - in many ways, the exact opposite of what they do when ‘landmark’ rulings are handed down that benefit their liberal causes (gay marriage, etc.).
We don't have individual state interpretations of the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments do we?
The states can be LESS restrictive than Federal Law, but not MORE restrictive of Individual Rights.
This decision may be far more sweeping than most now believe.
I suspect that will come early on, but not before incorporation. The founders didn't give us a RKBA that was restricted to the home. Can you imagine them saying we had to unload and put our guns in a locked box every time we left the house to get on our horse or into our buggies?
States that don't allow open carry or CCW will find themselves in a bind. May-Issue policies will have to go.
I should think that “bear arms” means pretty much what it says.and I can see regulating carry reasonably but not banning it
It didn't take long after Roe, Miranda etc.
They really can't fight it. They can move it through the court system but it will eventually wind up in the Supreme court who will send it back down to lower courts(if those courts ruled within the constitutional limits). What they don't realize is that when Scalia(and the other 4 justices)ruled that the 2nd is an individual right that we have in place the means, not only to remove gun bans, but to remove permits of any kind what so ever. If we have the right to buy a gun under federal law, in other words if you are not a convicted felon or have not been ruled mentally ill(insane)then you have the right to keep and bear arms, as an individual, not as a member of a militia, bear means to carry, the right to bear arms has been ruled an individual right one that cannot be infringed. Thus, we have the means to strike down carry permits, as we should do.
If you have the legal right to own a gun, you have the legal right to carry it, either openly or concealed. This will happen, it is just a matter of time.
Liberals know this and are sh**** their pants because of it.
They cannot outlaw CCWs. Heller clearly prohibits that. Read the decision. We have the individual right to keep and bear arms, the most monumental decision to ever come out of the Supreme court. I doubt Kennedy realized how sweeping this decision is or he would not have lent his support to it. Bear means carry. You can carry arms, whether concealed or open carry matters not. We will eventually strike down all CCW laws across the country. It is simply a matter of time.
If you ever find youself in need of some funds to do just that, send me an freep-mail and I will see what is available for such a worthy endevour. I know of a few people who might be interested in just such an investment in our security.
If I opened the window I'll bet I could hear teeth grinding to the southwest....
If we have the right to buy a gun under federal law, in other words if you are not a convicted felon or have not been ruled mentally ill(insane)then you have the right to keep and bear arms, as an individual,...
If the RKBA is a basic right, a civil right, and yet it can be denied to those with mental illness or maybe just lowered mental ability such as the retarded, is it such a stretch to think that a case can be made of restricting the practice of other basic, civil rights because of diminished mental ability?
The basic, civil right of voting for instance.
Would such pretense allow for competency tests in the polling place?
Don't say it can't happen, so much that can't happen has in the recent past.
This full court press by the NRA and the other pro-gun groups is the finest followup to any judicial decision that I can remember.
That's not needed. The demented vote in nursing homes.
The only gun groups doing anything about suing cities are the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.
I’m not aware of any other group taking advantage of Heller at the moment.
Both groups are going to need donations as quickly as possible.
I don’t know anything about the Sun, but I am *very* impressed they (correctly) referred to Wayne LaPierre as a “civil rights leader.”
I’m all in favor of requiring voters to pass a simple reading test. That would eliminate 50-60% of democrat votes...
I don’t want it to be simple: it needs to be a not-so-simple test on the US Constitution, the names of your senators and representative, etc.
And you have to pass it BEFORE election day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.