Heller Vs. D.C. 4 years later.

[RoadKingLarry]

Tomorrow marks 4 years for the Heller Vs. D.C. ruling.
We've had a number of pro-2A ruling since but how much has really changed?
DC and Chicago still pretty much ignore the rulings and as far as I know Dick Heller still doesn't have his permit. And Bloomberg still doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment.

[Ben]

I can't remember where (maybe here), but not too long ago, I saw an article detailing what, and how long, it took a reporter to acquire a handgun in DC. If I recall, it was some ridiculous, months long process. Apparently there is still only one gun dealer in the District that everyone has to go through?

Heller was a huge step, no doubt, but they still have a long way to go before they're even at "California standards" for ability to acquire a handgun. I suppose that could change quickly with the right court case.

[Tallpine]

Well to start with the feral dot gov could start taking "shall not be infringed" sorta seriously and repeal the prohibition on US CITIZENS buying a handgun in other than their state of residence. 

[TechMan]

I can't remember where (maybe here), but not too long ago, I saw an article detailing what, and how long, it took a reporter to acquire a handgun in DC. If I recall, it was some ridiculous, months long process. Apparently there is still only one gun dealer in the District that everyone has to go through?

Heller was a huge step, no doubt, but they still have a long way to go before they're even at "California standards" for ability to acquire a handgun. I suppose that could change quickly with the right court case.

This starts the series.

[Hawkmoon]

Well to start with the feral dot gov could start taking "shall not be infringed" sorta seriously and repeal the prohibition on US CITIZENS buying a handgun in other than their state of residence. 

Sadly, not even the SCOTUS justices on our side understand what "shall not be infringed" means. The SCOTUS has said, in both Heller and McDonald, that the RKBA may be regulated but may not be denied. They then said that what is open to debate (meaning further trials and appeals) is what degree of regulation is permissible and what isn't.

This, of course, ignores the clear language of the 2nd Amendment. What is a regulation if it is not an infringement?

[AJ Dual]

I know plenty of folks are still angry, and felt anything short of "W00t! 2A Beyotches! NFA '34 and GCA '68 repealz!" is a slap.

And there's some rather hurtful things "on our side" Scalia put in the decision in regards to what regulations were permissible, and wobbly on the scrutiny standard as well.

However, an even further sweeping decision in RKBA's favor would just be a juicy target for the anti-Left to go after. And judicial restraint on the part of the court isn't just for the sake of judicial restraint as a legal philosiphy. See-saw ideological swings and decision reversals can severely undermine the separation/balance of powers in the fed.gov.

And getting the ultimate "big win", it also puts RKBA's eggs, court-wise, all in one basket.  I'm no moderate on RKBA, however, I would rather see us gain ground consistently, even if it takes inordinately long, than keep betting on the legal version of Hail-Mary end-zone passes. IMO, "It was the right thing to do" is small comfort when you lose.

Anyone who thought post-Heller decisions like Chicago vs. McDonald wouldn't still take a lot of time and effort to enforce, essentially grinding down the municipal bureaucracies until such time that it became easier for them to comply, than resist... were dreaming.

That's not to say don't go-for-broke in places like CA where we've arguably got (almost) nothing to lose anymore, but I'm not as sanguine about gambling our (government recognition of our pre-existing natural) rights on legal bets with 50/50 odds or worse. 

[Ben]

That's not to say don't go-for-broke in places like CA where we've arguably got (almost) nothing to lose anymore, but I'm not as sanguine about gambling our (government recognition of our pre-existing natural) rights on legal bets with 50/50 odds or worse. 

This is where I agree more on the NRA method than the GOA method. I would love instant gratification on 2nd Amendment rights as much as the next guy, but small steps by the other side is (mostly) how we lost many of our rights. Small steps may be just what we need to regain them.

[longeyes]

The concept of "reasonable restrictions" effectively accepts, embraces, and endorses the reality of the lawless urban tribal enclaves liberalism has created over the last 50 years.

[AJ Dual]

This is where I agree more on the NRA method than the GOA method. I would love instant gratification on 2nd Amendment rights as much as the next guy, but small steps by the other side is (mostly) how we lost many of our rights. Small steps may be just what we need to regain them.

Actually you mean the SAF/CATO method.

The GOA does almost nothing but send out membership materials blasting the NRA, and filled with tough talk. As best I can tell, they do very little actual political/legal/lobbying work (as compared to the NRA, even when adjusted for size/proportion), and make money off of the more disgruntled, but less informed end of the RKBA crowd.

[HankB]

Here's a question:

With SCOTUS deciding the DC and Chicago gun bans were unconstitutional . . . what has happened to those convicted under these unconstitutional laws?

Is their record expunged? Do subsequent convictions dependent on their conviction under an unconstitutional law also get expunged? Are they due damages, especially if they spent time behind bars? (Some states have established financial compensation for wrongful convictions.)

Anyone know what's been going on here?  

[longeyes]

The urban mayors love racial politics, patronage, and illegal immigration.  Then they decry lawlessness and clamor for gun control.  We need controls all right but not on guns, on the sick dynamic of the people behind the nightmare.

[AJ Dual]

The urban mayors love racial politics, patronage, and illegal immigration.  Then they decry lawlessness and clamor for gun control.  We need controls all right but not on guns, on the sick dynamic of the people behind the nightmare.

Nobody knew it at the time, but the death knell for California sounded when Reynolds v. Sims was decided in 1968, and the state redistricted.

The state's vast area, and low population density away from the coasts and cities pretty much meant that rural/suburban sensibilities no longer had any chance of a majority in either house of their legislature ever again.

The dissent on the SCOTUS was understandably irate, pointing out that the U.S. Senate's system of two seats per state, no matter it's size or population was ensconced in the Constitution, so the idea that "equal representation" in both houses of a state (with bicameral representation) was somehow Constitutionally mandated was specious indeed.

Another example of why POTUS elections and SCOTUS appointments have much longer and far-reaching implications than the eight year term of the POTUS himself.

[charby]

The Heller decision is the main reason Iowa went from may issue to shall issue. The state elected officals realized it would be better to change the law then to go to court.

[MicroBalrog]

Tomorrow marks 4 years for the Heller Vs. D.C. ruling.
We've had a number of pro-2A ruling since but how much has really changed?
DC and Chicago still pretty much ignore the rulings and as far as I know Dick Heller still doesn't have his permit. And Bloomberg still doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment.

Chicago:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13389907-418/city-to-revamp-gun-control-ordinance-after-loss-in-court.html

[lee n. field]

Chicago:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13389907-418/city-to-revamp-gun-control-ordinance-after-loss-in-court.html

Everyone's expecting that they'll do what DC did: loosen up just enough to stay within what the court says they have to do.

Meanwhile, we await the appeals court ruling on Shepherd vs. Little Lisa Madigan (combined with Moore v. Madigan).  For what that's about, see Moore/Shepard hearing - 7th Circuit at Illinoiscarry.com.

[Scout26]

In addition to McDonald from the USSC, Chicago has been kind enough to give us Ezell, a recent ruling that a misdemeanor weapons charge is not enough to prevent you from getting a Chicago permit (Which might knock out the Lautenberg Amendment ) and the Cook County Assault Weapons ban  is in trouble. 



And we are waiting on a ruling in both Shepherd vs. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan which could knock the whole lack of carry into the water.  A favorable ruling may force the remaining "May Issue" states to "Shall Issue" or even dare I say "Constitutional Carry" since there is a request for an immediate injunction in both cases.

Chicago can keep trying to change it's laws, but after every loss they have to cut Alan Gura, et al. a check.  Which gives him more money for more lawsuits.  I love that Chicago is paying for it's own demise....

[Perd Hapley]

Chicago can keep trying to change it's laws, but after every loss they have to cut Alan Gura, et al. a check.  Which gives him more money for more lawsuits.  I love that Chicago is paying for it's own demise....

I think you mean, "paying for its own gun law reform." I certainly hope that looser gun laws do not lead to the city's demise! 

[AJ Dual]

I think you mean, paying for its own gun law reform. I certainly hope that looser gun laws do not lead to the city's demise! 

Well, nobody wants to see rubble rings like Detroit, but there's a lot of folks in downstate IL who wouldn't be ALL that upset over it. 

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, I see them down here from time to time.

[Strings]

Hell... visiting a "rubble-strewn Chicago" wold probably be a bit safer than current status...

[Hawkmoon]

The concept of "reasonable restrictions" effectively accepts, embraces, and endorses the reality of the lawless urban tribal enclaves liberalism has created over the last 50 years.

Could you 'splain me that in Engrish, puleeze?

[Hawkmoon]

The dissent on the SCOTUS was understandably irate, pointing out that the U.S. Senate's system of two seats per state, no matter it's size or population was ensconced in the Constitution, so the idea that "equal representation" in both houses of a state (with bicameral representation) was somehow Constitutionally mandated was specious indeed.

But the original intent was for the House of Representatives to represent the people, and for the Senate to represent the states. As originally written, senators were not elected by the populace, they were elected by the legislatures of the respective states.

I don't remember when or why the system was changed to have senators elected directly, but it WAS a change. In that historical context, the current setup is a lot less balanced than the original setup. Plus, the original setup would make it a lot less likely that any old goat could spend 40+ years being a U.S. senator, for the simple reason that long before 40 years some state legislator would decide it was past time for new blood.

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

This was changed by the 17th Amendment, which wasn't ratified until 1913. So we have had a popularly-elected senate for less time than we had a state legislature-elected senate.

[T.O.M.]

I'm waiting for someone in Ohio to jump on the issue of minor misdemeanor pot possession.  Under Ohio law, anyone convicted of a drug abuse offense is considered to be "under disability" with respect to firearms, and is banned from possession of a firearm for life.  Only way out is to apply with a court to have the disability removed.  In some counties, it's a simple application and small fee.  I've heard that in other counties, the prosecutors will file in opposition of any attempt to remove disability in the name of "public safety."

Think about this...under Ohio law, a minor misdemeanor is not even considered to be a crime.  Pay a fine and court costs, and walk away.  You cannot even be incarcerated for the offense.  yet, because of the minor misdemeanor possession of marihuana conviction, if you are found in possession of a firearm, it's a felony offense called Weapons Under Disability.

[AJ Dual]

But the original intent was for the House of Representatives to represent the people, and for the Senate to represent the states. As originally written, senators were not elected by the populace, they were elected by the legislatures of the respective states.

I don't remember when or why the system was changed to have senators elected directly, but it WAS a change. In that historical context, the current setup is a lot less balanced than the original setup. Plus, the original setup would make it a lot less likely that any old goat could spend 40+ years being a U.S. senator, for the simple reason that long before 40 years some state legislator would decide it was past time for new blood.

This was changed by the 17th Amendment, which wasn't ratified until 1913. So we have had a popularly-elected senate for less time than we had a state legislature-elected senate.

I must have been too wordy. We're in exact agreement. tl/dr version: Because of the U.S. Senate, I have no idea how the SCOTUS felt it could force states to proportional representation in both houses either.

And yes, the 17th Amendment is another watershed disaster in American politics. I wholeheartedly agree. I know there were big problems with deadlocked legislatures, or ones that met infrequently due to a slow session schedule, long travel times, and horse & buggy transportation leaving the U.S. Senate with seats unfilled constantly...

However, how two-thirds of the states got convinced to ratify the Amendment and reduce their power against the fed.gov, is still a mystery. I guess they felt the popular vote would match the state legislature's intents and wishes closely enough, and the ratio of urban to rural life, population, and their inherent differences just weren't so large back then that they could foresee a problem with it.

[MicroBalrog]

This is where I agree more on the NRA method than the GOA method. I would love instant gratification on 2nd Amendment rights as much as the next guy, but small steps by the other side is (mostly) how we lost many of our rights. Small steps may be just what we need to regain them.

And yet our steps seem to be much smaller than theirs.