Skip to comments.SCOTUS ruling and California’s ‘open carry’ law
Posted on 06/28/2010 3:30:11 PM PDT by SmithL
The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling 5-4 this morning in a challenge to Chicagos handgun ban, ruled that the Second Amendments guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws.
As a practical matter, this means all kinds of state and local gun restrictions will now be subject to more judicial scrutiny. For California, it confirms the already-strong likelihood that AB 1934 the pending bill that would outlaw open carry of unloaded, unconcealed firearms in public places quickly will be met with a lawsuit if its signed into law.
AB 1934s author is Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego; her office said she wasnt available to be interviewed today, but issued this statement:
We are reviewing the Justices decision in consultation with counsel and giving it the careful consideration required of a Supreme Court ruling. That said, we see nothing in the MacDonald decision that would suggest that it applies to legislation like AB 1934.
Justice Alito on page 40 of his decision reiterates the courts reassurances in Heller that this decision should not be interpreted as overturning firearm regulations passed by the states and municipalities:
(Excerpt) Read more at ibabuzz.com ...
What about California’s “Assault Weapons” ban?
Does anyone know if this will be overturned in California?
In Michigan our state constitution clearly states that municipalities can’t make their own gun laws.
Anything similar in California?
I would expect any lower federal court to uphold just about any ban, registration scheme, license fee, etc. that the elected politicians manage to pass. The chances of SCOTUS taking up a case that doesn't represent an effective outright ban on possession of ANY/ALL firearms is close to zero.
Some people believe that the constitution only allows firearms in the home. Of course, some people are just plain stupid.
The assault weapons ban is here to stay unless or until the Supremes call that an “unreasonable restriction”. I don’t see that happening in my lifetime. I can only hope.
Obviously, modern military arms are exactly the kinds of weapons the Founders wanted protected by our inalienable rights codified under the Second Amendment.
I can’t see a case coming before SCOTUS that tests this out. Not until a lot more progress is made scaling back restrictions on less “scary” looking guns.
I think the ban on semi-automtic guns firing relatively mild rifle cartridges like the .223 and 3.62x39 is patently unconstitutional in any reading of the Second Amendment, but being practical, I think it is going to take much longer for the legal system to sort out whether having more than 10 rounds in a rifle with a pistol grip is a reasonable restriction or not.
Doesn’t that depend on how many conflicting rulings we get from appeals courts? Every time two Courts of Appeals make conflicting rulings, it becomes a potential SCOTUS case to resolve. All we need is one Court of Appeals to overturn a ban on assault rifles in any state, and that will conflict with those upholding the bans. Presto. Off to the Supremes.
I don't think that condition will come to exist. The federal courts are almost perfectly uniform in their hostility to the RKBA.
Even if there is a split between the Circuits, SCOTUS can "wait" to act. It has no obligation to settle splits, and it might view a split on an assault weapons issue to be unimportant.
And finally, if it DOES decide to take up a "certain weapons" ban, it is more likely to uphold it, than to strike it. The only protection I see SCOTUS giving is against outright complete bans on possession of civilian-style long arms and sidearms.
And a majority sit on the Supreme Court.
Would this be the gun-ban signed into law by a Republican Governor?
The darning needle from hell.
I can't see this one surviving scrutiny. It's clearly an unequal application of a fundamental right, as is the arbitrary and capricious application of California's CCW permitting process.
What we get from liberals is just more Midnight Basketball, and the Court is no different. They are so behind reality and will never catch-up with it, I'm afraid.
Society IS changing but our Constitution must be held in chains else people will take it upon themselves to solve immediate problems with rights explicitly given to them. Those same Koreans who once stood on rooftops in Los Angeles to protect their businesses from rioting masses with SKS rifles would go to jail as the SKS was banned in CA a while back.
Perhaps this court would allow them to be inside the building with a bolt-action hunting rifle but this might not be the best logistical position. "Basketball, anyone?"
So, when someone's wife is shot dead in a parking lot and her car jacked, perhaps we could get a special edition B-ball, signed by the Justices themselves, delivered by UPS to the grieving family- at Midnight.
So build a little thatched roof on a 2x4 frame. Shazam, not only do you have shade, but now you're inside the building. Probably get a ticket from code compliance for a non-compliant addition, but it should still be part of the building from a firearm enforcement standpoint. Just pay the ticket and take it down after the riots.
OK, Chicago can't ban a handgun in the home, I get it, but nothing about protecting yourself outside your home, or what regulations/fees/licenses S-holes like Chicago can impose on gun owners. These issues are for a later date- if they come up at all.
Meanwhile, gangbangers, thieves, robbers, and crooked politicians continue unabated. All for want of an armed populace who could persuade said miscreants to change their ways or choose another career. Since the court will never be able to catch up, we get to live with the consequences and must act on our own. Carried by six, or judged by twelve is our only resort.
That’s right....the “Assault Weapons” ban was signed into law by GOP California George Deukmejian, Jr. with LAPD police chief Daryl Gates and now deceased LA County Sheriff Sherman Block by his side.
There was a loophole.....cosmetic changes to the banned weapons, and a new name, made them legal.....until another law was passed closing that loophole, that is.
Palmer, which deals with carry outside the home, is already at the appeals court for DC.
Lets make sure SCUMBAG AWE KNEE is gone first. That SOB laughing-stock made millions with guns and one of his first acts as governator was to ban all 50 cal Barrets which hut a lot of people with 50’s that shot in clubs by making their guns illegal, just like the UGLY BLACK gun ban did.
All through this thread I see people using the term ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. They have been banned unless registered with the FEDS since the 30’s. As a former Vietnam Era veteran that carried an XM16A1E1 select fire, I can tell you there are NO SEMI AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EARTH.
The attack on my right to protect myself and my wife will be met with disobedience if passed. I use the handle of “pansgold” for a reason. I do that and so does my wife. We prospect remote areas of California, usually on BLM or other federal land.
I always open carry a 44 magnum. Black bears, mountain lions, feral pigs love eating flesh, rattle snakes, and bandits since we usually have gold dust and nuggets on us.
There have been reports of people being shot when they stumbled into a pot grow or a meth lab. Screw AB 1934 and the commie pinko’s that support it.
It's not that the Supremes are rooted in the past, but in the specifics of the cases being brought to them. Heller was a very carefully designed, almost manufactured case. It wasn't a Second Amendment issue filed as a hail Mary by someone everyone knew was a bad guy trying to sabotage his prosecution. Heller had a clean criminal record, and was in fact allowed to carry a gun during his day job as a security guard, which made it very difficult for DC to explain why it would be dangerous if they "let" him have a handgun in his house for his own protection. DC was chosen to eliminate the potential objection of incorporation (the issue just decided in McDonald). Heller in fact moved to DC in 1993 specifically to eventually become a plaintiff in just such a case. So you see what I mean about it being a carefully crafted, almost manufactured case, with the intent of leaving almost no pretext for an adverse decision.
Now with Heller having determined that the Second Amendment describes an individual right, and not some stupid "collective right" as has been imagined by the anti-rights crowd, the NEXT most trivial case was brought; the same issue but to see whether the right which has already been acknowledged in Heller as belonging to the individual also applies to the states like the rest of the BOR. Surprise, surprise, it does, and has been found to be a "fundamental" right, about the highest classification it can receive.
Now, challenges to specific gun laws can proceed, under the high degree of pro-rights skepticism afforded "fundamental" rights.
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.