Which State (and Federal), gun control laws would you like to see challenged next?

As much as I'd like to respond "all of them", that is neither realistic or manageable.

Keeping within the ground rules laid down in Heller, there exists plenty of opportunity to have even more gun control laws struck down.

At the Federal level, eliminating the "sporting purpose" clause from the 1968 GCA might be possible.

Overturning the 1986 machine gun ban while desirable, could prove difficult, but not out of bounds.

At the state level (I have the unfortunate pleasure of being a resident of MA)...

Eliminating firearms licensing (or at the very least "may issue" licensing.

Eliminating firearms registration.

Eliminating "allowable firearms" rosters.

Eliminating state "Assault Weapons" and large capacity magazines bans.

Eliminating "waiting periods".

Eliminating "one gun per month" mandates.

It'll take years to challenge these issues as they wind their way through the court system, but now that we have the foundation laid, we finally have the golden opportunity we've been hoping for.

and restrictive firearm licensing (such as NYC) are the only reasonable choices

I think it should be repealed.

you'll get any more donations than Brady has this year but hey, It's your time to spend as you see fit.

Yeah, verily.

But thanks for trying... :eyes:

Should be a piece of cake.

Why do you feel the need to strip others of their rights?

Hello Civil War II!

at least you advocate disarming society via a constitutional remedy. That's a lot more than I can say for most gun control proponents.

Limitations on the number of guns you can purchase at once.

Waiting periods.

MAY issue laws. I do concede that licensing for the public carrying of arms is reasonable so long as such licensing is not framed to be prohibitive.

86 Hughes amendment

Any reference to "sporting purpose" in Fed and State laws.

Eventually the 200 dollar Title II tax.

"I do concede that licensing for the public carrying of arms is reasonable so long as such licensing is not framed to be prohibitive".

However... in MA (and I believe a few other states), a license is required to purchase, own and posses any firearm (black powder excluded). A license for handguns and/or large capacity semi-automatic long arms is "may issue". The discretionary abuses by police chiefs in this state with regard to issuing licenses is rampant and out of control.

Out of all the current laws I listed, eliminating MA's "may issue" system is number one on my list and is easily one that could be overturned.

need to go from a "May issue" to a "Shall issue."

what the majority said.
"Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms. "
That would leave open new restrictions for a state.

It says



That is a very mild statement. If incorporation imperiled EVERY law regulating firearms, it would imperil the law(s) that keep Charles Manson from keeping and bearing arms in prison. It would imperil the laws that keep 5 yo's from playing with guns on the playground. It would imperil the laws forbidding sweeping crowds with unholstered pistols or waving your rifle around in the mall. It would imperil laws against target shooting in Central Park. It would imperil laws against gun possession by hallucinating mental patients.

You seem to think that they actually said

The court could even have split the difference and gone with language like "doesn't imperil "most of", "some", "many", etc.

By saying EVERY the only thing court is saying is nothing here should be taken to suggest a blanket overturn of any and all gun legislation.

If you can legally own it you can legally carry it.

"Assault weapons" ban, parts I and II
.50 BMG rifle ban
One-handgun-per-month
"Safe handgun" law mish-mash

purchases legislation.

Didn't see your post when I posted my remark downthread.

The "assault weapon" laws are ridiculous. I can own a mini-14 but I can't put a pistol grip on it or it turns into a deadly "assault weapon". I can't own a Saiga imported by Kalashnikov USA cause it is a deadly assault weapon, but I can own one imported by RAA cause it is not.

I would not own a 50 BMG (no desire) but it is silly to think that you can shoot down a jet with it and thus should be banned.

We need new personnel on the SCOTUS -- justices who won't follow the NRA's lead in perverting the 2nd Amendment.

in the near future.

The legal battles will be fought over how strict the regulations for forearm ownership can be made. For example, can a city ban semi-auto firearms and restrict handgun ownership to revolvers.



I own both semi-auto pistols and revolvers and personally prefer a revolver for self defense. Many people have decided that a semi-auto pistol is far better than a revolver and they currently are the best selling handgun type in our nation.

Can a city or state forbid a citizen to own a weapon that is legal and common in other parts of the nation?

The legal questions that will be decided in the future by our courts and the Supreme Court will revolve around issues like this.

:rofl: :rofl:

You are either totally separated from reality, or a troll.

So, which is it?

They certainly are not, esp. in terms of preventing crime. (The Center for Disease Control seems to say the same thing.)

Perhaps someone with the views of former Congressman Jack Brooks (D) of Texas, a strong progressive who was a strong advocate of 2A would be a good choice for the SCOTUS.

We do need to get rid of the Jim Crow "may issue" laws in some localities/states; I mean, how can Sen. DiFi (a virulent gun prohibitionist) get a CCW from Cali, but the average Jack or Jill cannot?

Prior case have ruled that charging for a right is violation of equal protection clause. Even if the amount is negligible amount ($2 voter registration fee in VA).

Also like a shotgun I expect various groups to target lawsuits at the most restrictive legislation across the country (may issue, nyc, ca awb ban, prohibition on all carry, excessive registration fees, burdensome regulation, etc).

The current gun control laws, where enacted for the most part, over the past 40 or so years..

It may take 40 years for us, to take care of them. One victory at a time.

I already have 17 years invested, So I am in it for the long haul.

Need I say more? :shrug:

Is this true? Or is it an exaggeration of something else?

The problems may arise with handgun ammo because of the new law which will take effect in 2011. Handgun ammo and parts will have to be sold like firearms through a FFL. That will make a dent in the bulk ammo and parts market and make it harder for re-loaders to get inexpensive materials. Many out of state sellers have pulled out of the California market because of the law changes. I expect more will do so after this latest law is enacted.

Not that that is acceptable, mind you.

Many of the laws here in California are just misguided attempts to deal with social, racial, and economic problems through restriction of objects. They really do nothing to get at the core issues.

Edit: I don't want to see that repealed, obviously; I'd like to see it :evilgrin:

But I'd say that what I'd put at the top is eliminating any and all instances where the precise way a regulation is applied is left to the "discretion" of a member of the executive branch of government. That means primarily any "may issue" form of licensing, and yes, the "sporting purpose" (a call which is formally left to the Attorney-General, in effect the ATF).

In fact, licensure at all, since it is now a fundamental right, that cannot be stripped without due process.
May issue licensure on things flies DIRECTLY in the face of the idea of a nation of laws, and turns it into a nation of men. Some animals are more equal than others, don't you know.



#2 Magazine capacity restrictions.

These are silly and do nothing but run up prices on neutered magazines, it's pure elitism.


I know that it is tempting to go after the big stuff first, but I don't recommend it. I'm just a law student, but I think actual lawyers would agree, it is better to deal with the little stuff first, where you are more likely to succeed, than to risk a loss early on before the jurisprudence is established that you then have to spend years and dozens of suits fixing.