Posted: 3/10/2008 7:32:02 AM EDT
|
So lets assume DC-Heller goes the way we all want it to go, what can we expect from that? 1) Will the NFA and import bans go away? Will the market be flooded with new awesome guns? 2) Does this mean there are no longer background checks when buying guns? 3) Does the ATF get disbanded now? 4) Since gun legislation becomes state issue, if all goes to plan. what keeps liberal anti gun states like Komiefornia or NY, or Ill from out right banning firearms? Just Looking for some clarity on the issue. and to try and figure out all the possibilities. Thanks ahead of time for your responses. |
|
None of those things will necessarily happen. If Heller goes our way (which I think it will), a lot will depend on the wording of the opinion. It would definitely make outright "bans" - like those in D.C. (and probably Chicago), illegal, but the implications for banning certain types of firearms, or banning certain features, or even magazine capacity or things like that - MAY NOT be affected at all. |
|
1) I'm hoping eventually, but it won't happen immediately. 2) No - felons have other rights on their restrictions (can't vote, can't travel freely while on probation, etc) that have been ruled Constitutional. 3) No 4) Future USSC decision incorporating the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth as protecting an individual right. |
|
IMHO: 1) I have great doubt it will have any impact 2) Don't believe Heller case has anything to do with this 3) see #2, but my personal opinion is that the BATF needs to quit wasting my tax $ and just go away. 4) States cannot pass legislation in violation of the US Constitution  YMMV |
Let me pick your brain here... I have always been of the opinion that State regulations and bans were legitmate, albeit distasteful. Reason being, the founding fathers intended 13 separate experiments in democracy, not 13 mini-Federal Governments. What's your thoughts on this? |
Why would the founding father enumerate rights in a federal Constitution and not expect those right to apply through out the federation they created? |
I'm SO the wrong person to ask about this, since I'm just a dilletante on this stuff  - someone like PAEBR332 would be the guy to go to.But my impression is that if the decision helps to clarify a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, then it absolutely can limit the behavior of states. Even though the founding fathers wanted states to have as much freedom as possible, they are still bound by the Bill of Rights as well as later amendments. After all, a state couldn't legally decided to re-institute slavery as a solution to illegal immigration, right? So if the Heller decision clarifies what the LIMIT is for bans and regulations, then I do not see how states or localities can go beyond that. If they did, it would be challenged as unconstitutional, and the Heller decision would be a clear precedent. |
Well, federally protected rights are in reality protected to differing degrees. Take a white mans gun? We're protecting the children. Take a black mans vote? You just pulled the trigger on MLK yourself. |
Wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly requires states to respect rights that are guaranteed by the federal Bill of Rights. |
The 14th Amendment changed all that. |
Except the 'incorpration doctrine' got created. |