"Heller" Skelter - the future of the gun war
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: "Heller" Skelter - the future of the gun war

  1. #1

    "Heller" Skelter - the future of the gun war

    Heller and McDonald are having an impact on state and local laws that prohibit law abiding citizens from possessing handguns for self defense in our homes.

    However, many more cases have used the portions of Heller that allow restrictions. A recently decided case (United States v. Salter, DC WD AR) conatin a collection of recent cases with regard to the "machinegun" posession:


    The Heller court found that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. The Court stated that "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the [*8] possession**2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570, 625, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2816 (U.S.,2008).

    The District Courts that have addressed the issue have uniformly found that the 2nd Amendment is not violated by a legitimate government interest in controlling certain weapons. See United States v. Gilbert, 286 Fed. Appx. 383 (9th Cir.2008) ("Under Heller, individuals still do not have the right to possess machineguns . . . ") cert. denied Gilbert v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 613, 172 L.Ed.2d 468 (2008); United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.2008) (under Heller, the possession of a machinegun and unregistered sawed-off shotgun is not protected by the Second Amendment) cert. denied Fincher v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1369, 173 L.Ed.2d 591 (2009); United States v. Ross, 323 Fed. Appx 117 (3rd Cir.2009) ("Nothing in Heller supports [defendant's] challenge to the constitutionality of a statute criminalizing the possession of a machine gun.") cert. denied [*9] Ross v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 347, 175 L.Ed.2d 229 (2009); United States v. Willaman, 2009 WL 578556 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 5, 2009) ("The Supreme Court in Heller did not find that possession of machine guns is protected by the Second Amendment."). And in a decision post McDonald, the Eighth Circuit in Allen reaffirmed its holding in Fincher that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to possess a machine gun. Allen, 630 F.3d 762 at 766 ( "[n]othing in McDonald . . . changes the rule in this circuit.").
    A good review of the case law to date can be found at POST-HELLER LITIGATION SUMMARY Updated November 8, 2011 (Don't disregard the message just because you don't like the messenger - although the memo is produced by an anti-gun organization it is a fair representation of the case law to date.)

    More importantly, these cases highlight that despite the Heller and McDonald cases, the real battle ground over gun rights is going to be at the state and local level.

    Instead of focusing our resources on "federal gun rights" we should be focusing or efforts on state and federal gun legislation, as least in the near term. Yes, there is still need a need to eliminate irrational federal restrictions. But if you want to possess a firearm outside of your home you'll have to first look to your local and state lawmakers.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina, United States
    Posts
    159
    Hear Hear! Very well put. I am hoping that they will AMMEND the law about restaurant carry in SC sometime before I die of old age. LOL

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Soverign State of Poverty Knob near Tennessee
    Posts
    200

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefpropellerhead View Post
    I am hoping that they will AMMEND the law about restaurant carry in SC sometime before I die of old age. LOL
    Move to Tennessee. We can carry in restaurants and bars (as long as we are not consuming alcohol). Also, NO State Income Tax unless you are living off investment instruments.
    Let's hear it for Gun Free Zones... Public places where the criminal has a monopoly
    on self defense. - Gary Nelson 2012

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina, United States
    Posts
    159
    That is nice... I think that the law should state that if you are consuming alcohol leave the weapon in the car locked up. Other than that why would they care? If I ever decide to hop states I will keep your state in mind for sure.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by WB9IIE:244993
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefpropellerhead View Post
    I am hoping that they will AMMEND the law about restaurant carry in SC sometime before I die of old age. LOL
    Move to Tennessee. We can carry in restaurants and bars (as long as we are not consuming alcohol). Also, NO State Income Tax unless you are living off investment instruments.
    Ill one up you. You can carry in bars in Kentucky AND drink, gun has to be unloaded though. But you can keep a magazine/speedloader in your pocket.

    Not that I'm suggesting drinking and carrying a gun is a good idea....cause I'm not. But I like it when my government lets me decide, something about that whole liberty thing.

  7. #6
    Come to New York. We can carry in bars and restaurants without restriction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast