Current Gun Case before Supreme Court

[GOV5]

I started this as a new thread, based upon reading about the paperwork needed in some States to sell or buy a gun between individuals. In fact, this whole gun Registration and background check stuff with the State and Feds is really a hassle.

Therefore, I started wondering if the McDonald Case will do away with all these regulations, if the Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In one fell swoop, all these State-by-state regulations and laws, and FEDERAL laws, could be made useless.... null and void. You could buy any firearm you wanted. You could carry concealed or open. And neither the State, or Federal Govt could say anything about it at all!

[NDS]

This Court appears to like and stick with very narrow decisions. The question before SCOTUS has to do with the Constitutionality of a ban on ownership of a type or class of firearm. Expect a decision favor of gun rights, but it will probably stop at incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states and affirm the right to 'keep and bear arms' is an individual right.

Anything more than that will require more cases, or lawmakers to give up their anti-Constitutional restrictions like cities around Chicago did after Heller. It would be wonderful if SCOTUS would decide they are a little tired of these cases after Heller and McDonald came so closely together and make a more sweeping ruling. Dicta can help lower courts make rulings after a decision ... but not always.

[HootmonSccy]

As good as all this sounds, I prefer to leave the gun rights up to the states.. IF you do not like the gun laws in your state, then move. IF you turn this over to the Federal government, then it only takes a few people to swing things back in the other direction and take away the rights of everyone..
At least that's my view..

[Alaska444]

As good as all this sounds, I prefer to leave the gun rights up to the states.. IF you do not like the gun laws in your state, then move. IF you turn this over to the Federal government, then it only takes a few people to swing things back in the other direction and take away the rights of everyone..
At least that's my view..

+1 on that. More and more states are becoming gun friendly and NOW the Feds want a piece of the action. I believe it will come back to bite us as much as Chicago needs to have the right to own a hand gun for those that live there. We probably have more security in the states. Look at health care, now the states are fighting what is most likely a losing battle to keep control. Looking at the history of the Feds, they use crises after crises to gain more and more power. Giving up the hand gun ban in Chicago may be a small price to pay for controlling all of the gun friendly states.

[GOV5]

As good as all this sounds, I prefer to leave the gun rights up to the states.. IF you do not like the gun laws in your state, then move. IF you turn this over to the Federal government, then it only takes a few people to swing things back in the other direction and take away the rights of everyone..
At least that's my view..

" I prefer to leave the gun rights up to the states.. "
You are missing the whole point, in my humble opinion. The States don't have the right to control guns either. The whole idea of HAVING to CONTROL anything is it sends a subliminal message that what being controlled is EVIL. Guns are not EVIL. That philosophy is what we as gun owners and carriers are trying so hard to eliminate.

"IF you do not like the gun laws in your state, then move."

Oh yeah, just up and move away from that job that you've spent 15 years at, are now making some decent pay, and pull your wife away from her job too, and move to a place that may not be as nice to live, or have the same pay scales, just because your state legislature wants to keep tromping on the U.S. Constitution.
What Are you thinking? That logic is OK if you work at jobs that pay at, or near, minimum wage. But for the rest of the people that are in career paying jobs, that logic fails miserably. And again, all because you won't get politically active in your State and Federal government to DEMAND these infringements on individual rights be stopped.

"IF you turn this over to the Federal government, then it only takes a few people to swing things back .."

We don't want to turn anything over to the Federal Govt. We want them to GIVE it BACK to us, where it is Constitutionally mandated to be, and end the abuse by Federal and State GOVTs of the U.S. Constitution.

This liberal minded, long endured, Constitutionally abusing, mind numbing, political propaganda campaign has even done it's damage on YOU, as a gun owner and carrier.

You, and me, are freemen, and want to remain that way. That is why our Country's founders WANTED us to be armed, so that we could protect ourselves against enemies.. even those from within...called politicians. They knew that freedom to vote was no good without a Constitution that limited the power of those that got VOTED into office.

[trophyhunter]

I agree with Hootmonsccy<

The last thing we need is the Feds in our Gun Rights or, Decieding how we can purchase,own,carry our weapons
I agree that new laws need to be implimeanted but, that power should not be given over to the Fed Gov. Once that happens we are all in troulbe. just my 2cents...

[eagleks]

Regulation, up to the states. "Rights" to bear arms, is in the Constitution. Enough said, LOL.

Like DC , they said OK... and then tried to put regulations that made it nearly impossible to get thru it all and own a gun. Heller filed again, and the Supreme Court then ruled that they had to give Heller the license to own the gun and ruled the laws as unconsitutional as they were done to in essence to make owning a gun prohibitive.

So, it will take several cases to get there.

[Scarecrow]

As good as all this sounds, I prefer to leave the gun rights up to the states.. IF you do not like the gun laws in your state, then move. IF you turn this over to the Federal government, then it only takes a few people to swing things back in the other direction and take away the rights of everyone..
At least that's my view..

sounds like the voice of reason...

[Midnight]

THIS CASE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN JUST THE HANDGUN BAN IN CHICAGO!

The plaintiffs in McDonald vs. Chicago are also looking to overturn the 1873 Slaughter-house Cases, which basically say that the Bill of Rights don't apply to State and local governments. This case could have a dramatic effect on the future of laws in America!

[maybejim]

+1 on that. More and more states are becoming gun friendly and NOW the Feds want a piece of the action. I believe it will come back to bite us as much as Chicago needs to have the right to own a hand gun for those that live there. We probably have more security in the states. Look at health care, now the states are fighting what is most likely a losing battle to keep control. Looking at the history of the Feds, they use crises after crises to gain more and more power. Giving up the hand gun ban in Chicago may be a small price to pay for controlling all of the gun friendly states.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This case is about making the states follow the Second Amendment. Something that they have not been doing. Lose this case and you will start losing the gains that have recently been made. There would be nothing to keep the states from changing the laws back to the unconsitutional mess that they were before.