Assuming we prevail in Heller, Joe Huffman has a good suggestion on how to proceed…. that is cautiously. One of my chief fears is that people will start pushing second amendment claims against things like machine gun possession.  While I would like to see the second amendment include a right to possess automatic firearms, it’s not something to start out of the gate with.
As for what to try after the DC ban?  There’s not much easy pickings at the federal level.  The ban on National Parks is the only thing that comes to mind, but I think incorporation is probably a better thing to try to get before going after the “bearing” part, rather than the “keeping” part. We could go after the “sporting purposes” clause, but then someone has to get prosecuted for importing a firearm before it can be challenged.
“We could go after the “sporting purposes†clause, but then someone has to get prosecuted for importing a firearm before it can be challenged.”
A while back I considered military as a career. However the 89 (and another one; can’t remember when it was passed) ban killed that idea. Still grinds my gears seeing pictures of SVDs being torched. (laughs) Guess that’s the mil-surp collector in me. If things go well when it comes to Heller I’d risk a great deal for the “sporting purposes” crap to go away. Just something to think about.
I would suggest that a good place to start is CCW reciprocity laws. If I jumped thru all the hoops in my home state, I should be able to legally carry when I cross over some imaginary geographical boundry.
The reason people are going to go for the ’86 ban is that is does not require incorporation.
During the Glenn Reynolds interview with Bob Levy (the guy behind the Heller case), Levy basically said that the next targets should be (1) similar laws at the city/state level (eg, Chicago); and (2) trying to pin down the limits of “reasonable regulation”.
I would suggest that a good place to start is CCW reciprocity laws. If I jumped thru all the hoops in my home state, I should be able to legally carry when I cross over some imaginary geographical boundry.
That would be something Congress would have to do, and it’s questionable whether they have the power, except maybe under the 14th amendment. You can’t ask the Supreme Court to create law. They could throw out concealed carry regulation entirely, but not create national reciprocity of a licensing system.
The reason people are going to go for the ‘86 ban is that is does not require incorporation.
Yep. There will be no stopping it. And it’s the wrong case to go with. I agree with Levy on this matter.
My main point is that SCOTUS has thrown the 2A into the political spotlight in a big way during an election year. When SCOTUS rules in our favor, we should confront congress on 2A matters, not just try to find people “with standing” to take to the courts.
Sad fact is, congress may be quicker than the courts for many of our battles.
Since urban centers are generally the stronghold of the gun controllers, they’d have to be defeated first. I guess that means taking away their ability to pass laws regarding firearms.
Congress is definitely the easier route, and what we’ve had a lot of success with so far.
On the assumption the court goes our way, the first place to go after should be one w/ a similar law, Chicago. A win there would re-enforce the ruling w/ precedent and allow for the broadening of various suits.
You could make a case for interstate sales ban being a good next target too – not requiring incorporation. Might lose some support from the retailers, though
The fed will still be able to ban automatic weapons, grenades, sawed-off shotguns and the like. What I would like to see is the remaining few states to incorporate the 2nd into their constitutions. Second, I would like to see preemption laws to protect cities and counties within a state from having draconian gun laws. Third, I would like to see what “reasonable” regulation that can be done with firearms. Like no shooting in the city limits, maybe arm or not arm public employees at the courthouse, tax collector, etc. An outright ban is obvious to most people except in the District and a few other cities. Thirty-one years without effective means of self-defense! I would favor seeing more states banning removing firearms from law-abiding folks in hurricanes, floods, other natural disasters so we do not leave the criminals armed, like after hurricane Katrina, and take away firearms from people who did nothing wrong. Anti-gunners have a terrible time giving a rational explanation as to why violent crimes are down overall in ALL 40 states with firearm carry laws. Could it be the good guys are armed and the bad guys know it? The usual response is to remove firearms from the good guys and leave the criminals free to exploit gun-free areas. Morever, these anti-gunners have learned virtually NOTHING from the experience, and just exhibit a knee-jerk response to crime and try to pass a few more, ineffective gun laws, as if 20,000 or so were not enough. Thank you Supreme Court for taking the case and reformulating D.C.’s stupid single question.
“The fed will still be able to ban automatic weapons, grenades, sawed-off shotguns and the like.”
Not exactly ban, more like “stringently regulate” as is currently done with [individually carried] fully-automatic weapons.
Teqjack,
You are right, machine guns are stringently regulated. A guy who used to live behind me had a federal firearms license and was a collector and had several nice automatic firearms. I believe the sawed-off shotguns are prohibited, but you can have automatics with appropriate licensing. The fed will still regulate these type weapons. I don’t think states and the District will be able to ban functional firearms for residents any more. Thank goodness.
Well, the feds don’t quite ban machine guns etc. They just make it hard and expensive to own them
Short barreled shotguns and rifles are legal to own as long as you pay your NFA tax. Only machine guns aren’t permitted to be registered for civilian transfer.