Well there might be hope.. linky

Sure and I would like to sell you a bridge in NY.

It's something

Interesting. Possible future circuit split on this issue.

This is nothing to scoff at.  It may be a small positive step in the face a mountain of tyranny that we face but it could have huge implications down the road.  With government pushing more and more to have medical records merged in background checks and doctors asking about your gun ownership this could prove to be extremely important in the future.  They want us disarmed and every time we block a way from them achieving that it is a victory.  This also reassures people who may be going through something really mentally taxing in their life that they don't need to choose between seeking out potentially life-saving treatment and their lifetime of civil rights.  Nobody should have to be faced with that choice and that is exactly what this court decision is saying.  I'm happy with this.  It gives me hope for our upcoming legal battles and hope is hard to find in Upstate, NY these days.

Another short one:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/19/sixth-circuit-mental-health-gun-ban-is-unconstitutional/

SIXTH CIRCUIT: MENTAL HEALTH GUN BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL


by AWR HAWKINS19 Dec 2014

On December 18, a three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a ban on gun purchases for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of a Michigan man who was denied a gun purchase because of a mental institution commitment in 1986.

According to The Wall Street Journal, 73-year-old Clifford Charles Taylor “recently attempted to buy a gun but was denied on the grounds that he had been committed by a court to a mental institution in 1986 after emotional problems associated with a divorce.”

Judge Danny Boggs wrote the majority opinion for the panel: “The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.”

On October 17, 2013, Breitbart News reported that Mayo Clinic psychiatrist, J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., warned that the push to take Second Amendment rights away from the mentally ill was misplaced. He said, “The majority of mentally ill people aren’t dangerous” and that the attempt to bar every person who has ever had a mental health diagnosis from gun ownership would do nothing to reduce high profile, gun-related crimes.

He stressed that “as long as  the Second Amendment is the law of the land, the right of the people to keep and bear arms … will be an integral part of the American scene.”

Ya know, something I find funny is that this all came about from this guy trying to make a gun purchase 28 years later.  I can almost guarantee that he has bought guns in the meantime without needing a 4473.  He probably already owns a bunch of guns and the reason he went through with the lawsuit is because he was pissed (rightfully so) and I'm glad he did.  I just find it kinda funny how pointless background checks actually are in real world application.

Good.

They say he can own a gun. The crux is what kind of gun.

Even rabid liberals will say you should be able to own a single shot break open shotgun for hunting and shooting clay pigeons.

A little crum, but something.

It is an interesting development.  If the strict scrutiny analysis stands, it could go a long way towards fully restoring the Second Amendment.



There is another case sitting out there now that questions the ban on firearm ownership for non-violent felons.  The libertarian in me says that once you have paid your debt to society you should be able to resume your life in full.  Plus with so many "crimes" having been turned into felonies by overzealous politicians, it may be necessary to have restrictions lifted after time has been served.  The way things are going, NYC will probably make Jay Walking and Bike Riding without a helmet a felony at some point.  The thought that mere possession of a piece of metal manufactured after 1994, that happens to be able to hold 11 rounds of ammunition, is classified as a violent felony should give one pause.

The strict scrutiny part of the decision is the most  important aspect by far of the ruling. I think this is the first time a federal court of appeals has officially stamped out what level of scrutiny should be applied to the 2nd.

Wow. Look at that.

Start at page 24.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

(Strict scrutiny) + (SCOTUS personnel status quo) + (SCOTUS cert granted) = FUAC !