Skip to comments.Predicting the Impact of McDonald (excellent analysis)
Posted on 06/28/2010 5:20:51 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
The Supreme Court has now incorporated the Second Amendment against the states. But the impact of that decision may turn out to be fairly limited. In most states, there will be little if any change in the actual extent of gun regulation. The ideologically divided nature of the Courts decision suggests that the legal status of the Second Amendment isnt yet completely secure. That said, the decision will have a substantial practical impact in a few areas and it also represents a tremendous symbolic victory for gun rights advocates.
I. Limited Practical Impact.
On balance, I agree with scholars such as co-blogger Eugene Volokh and Jack Balkin who argue that McDonald will have only a limited practical effect. As Balkin puts it:
Complete bans on the use of handguns in the home for self-defense are likely to be held unconstitutional, as the Heller case suggested. But a wide range of other firearms regulations should be perfectly legal. The Supreme Court signaled as much in Heller and once again in McDonald.
The big difference between applying a constitutional right only against the federal government and applying it against state and local governments is that there are many more state and local regulations of firearms than federal regulations, and these regulations occur in many different varieties.
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
All is for naught if we lose a conservative justice during Obama’s term. All is won if we don’t lose a conservative justice and elect a conservative President and Senate.
Well, we had massive resistance to integration. Now we’ll have massive resistance to Second Amendment rights. But it will fade eventually.
Really? I have a feeling that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 922(r) couldn't survive a court case.
This is the 'Sporting Purposes' section of Title XVIII in the US Code of Justice brought in by the 1968 Gun Control Act.
After McDonald's RKBA incorporation under the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, how can any individual civil right related to firearms be mitigated by or reconciled with it's suitability for duck hunting?
Give it a few more years and some careful strategy backed up with a goodly amount of partisan funding to bring the case forward and much of the 1968 GCA and the Hughes Amendment to 1986 FOPA is as dead as fried chicken dinner.
Knock those laws on their asses and the job of BATFE Field Agent will be about as exciting a career as Dept. of Agriculture's "Grain Silo Meter Tare Weight Calibration and Certification Technician I"
Hell, Lets just ban Chapter 4 of 18 USC....that would make liberal’s heads explode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.