Downside to Heller

[newarcher]

The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?

New

[ricardo900]

You are spot on newarcher, I would expect that DC & Illinois follow the example of NYC by making gun ownership time consuming and very problematic, making the would be gun owner jump thru many hoops just to possess one and probably not to carry. If the Supremes would have voted the other way, it would've allowed anti-gun cities like NYC & Chicago to ban all handguns.

I bet Bloomberg sent his team down there already.

[Red Hat]

In an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA on FOX he said that the NRA was filing lawsuits as he spoke against Chicago, San Francisco and anywhere that our rights are being denied. Go NRA!

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by Red Hat

In an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA on FOX he said that the NRA was filing lawsuits as he spoke against Chicago, San Francisco and anywhere that our rights are being denied. Go NRA!

Good. I bet Bloomberg, Daley and their ilk are fit to be tied.

[newarcher]

Wow, either:

a) I am just darned smart--and good looking too!

b) I have ESP

or

c) The liberals are that predictable


The Hill's Blog Briefing Room Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation

New

[Palmach]

Originally Posted by newarcher

The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?

New

Unfortunately, the downside from Heller was actually caused by their own legal team. In the opinion given by the court they made it clear that Heller was not disputing rhe licensing requirement imposed by D.C., but the ban on his right to own and carry an operational handgun in his own home for personal defense.

[LeavingMass]

Originally Posted by newarcher

[SIC]

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property...?[/SIC]

Thoughts?

New

Now we need the citizens serving on the Jury of a castle shooting case to do their part to uphold the right of a home and property owner to defend themself .....

[Sheldon]

Originally Posted by HK4U

Good. I bet Bloomberg, Daley and their ilk are fit to be tied.

U are so on target with that one Daley throws a fit

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by newarcher

The pundits are already speculating that this may have to be applied to Chicago as well. That's good news.

While Heller is a victory overall, it has some downsides and I don't think that in 5 years it will be any easier to defend yourself in DC, NYC, or Chicago. The reasons?

1) These areas can still restrict your right to carry a weapon concealed or open carry.

2) These areas can still restrict ownership in various ways.

3) These areas can enact legislation that is so one sided that it would be virtually impossible to have a 'legal shoot' if someone were attacking you in your home, on your property, or eslewhere. Think Ted Kennedy's run away law. If DC and NYC and Chicago make such laws as to make it impossible to use our guns in such a fashion to defend ourselves, what have we won?

Thoughts?

Those will be issues for future cases, but this was a necessary step to make way for those others. Basically this "incorporates" the 2nd Amendment - ie, says that it does actually apply to the states, and not just at a federal level. The 2nd Amendment is the last amendment of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states.

I'd like concealed carry and other rights to be extremely permissive and universal across the country - but honestly, because of the massive regional disagreements, things will probably never be THAT good. However, if McCain gets elected and can appoint good justices, it might be realistic to believe that licensed concealed carry could eventually be available in Chicago and San Francisco.

You can bet they'll make people fill out a ream of paperwork and jump through some hoops, but carry is carry.

[whiptrackercracker]

For sure, it is very true that those cities will make it just as hard or harder than NYC to defend and carry. However, at least there is the slightest possibility now. Its a step in the right direction, and probably the best compromise they could have done given the heated debate. It draws a line in the sand, do not pass go do not collect 200. You cannot ban guns and guns are an individual right!!!