At least one 9th circuit judge seems willing to consider the possibility.
Category: 2nd Amendment
Motion for Summary Judgement Filed in New Jersey Case
From ANJRPC, the motion can be found here. Reading through it with my layman’s eyes, it looks very well done and thorough. They go to great length to distinguish New Jersey’s law from California’s (which was upheld by a District Court earlier) and I think deal quite effectively with existing precedent in the Circuit on obliterated serial numbers, which applied intermediate scrutiny. Obviously the plaintiffs in this case are calling for strict scrutiny to be applied. It also hits to the heart of the issue here, if I may quote from the motion:
The additional articulated components of the “need†requirement are similarly overbroad and impermissible. The requirement that citizens “corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies†is entirely irrational. Individuals victimized once may never be victimized again, and an individual’s first encounter with a violent criminal may well lead to death or seriously bodily harm – before he or she can even articulate the “need.†The right to self-defense at the core of the Second Amendment does not depend for its existence on a history of previous victimization. The Second Amendment provides that individuals – not the State – retain the ability to decide whether their own “necessity for self-protection†necessitates being armed.
We’ll see how this goes. We should know soon how the judge will rule on this motion. Obviously, the State of New Jersey will be filing a motion for summary judgement from the other point of view.
Wishful Thinking
At least one MIT history professor thinks Breyer and Stevens’ dissent was correct. Unfortunately for her, Stevens’ dissent has been thoroughly discredited, and just based on this article, Professor Maier has only superficial knowledge of the scholarship in this area. What she does know she’s obviously using to bolster her pre-conceivded notions, rather than looking at what the founders really had to say about the topic.
Quote of the Day
Dave Hardy responds to Justice Breyer’s assertion that the founders were familiar with gun laws:
Of course the Framers knew of gun laws. They required most male citizens to have at least one.
Justice Breyer on RKBA
Many thanks to Only Guns and Money for this video of Justice Breyer:
As John mentioned, “Justice Breyer was Bill Clinton’s gift to American jurisprudence.” I can never understand the man’s logic here, or on many things. So because the Second Amendment is of questionable scope, we ought to read it out of the Bill of Rights? The Courts have successfully defined the scope of every other amendment, and with the possible exception of the fourth, have somehow manages to set appropriate boundaries. And how does the right have any meaning if you can’t exercise it in the sanctity of your own home?
Assessing the Impact of Heller and McDonald
Ilya Somin agrees with Josh Blackman that the impact is going to be pretty limited. When looking short term, I tend to agree with that. I believe what will end up happening legally is that the status quo is largely frozen into place, with some of the very restrictive jurisdictions forced to relax their rules to a large degree. But in the end, I still think having a gun and carrying one in New York City will be more of a pain in the ass than doing the same in Phoenix. The judiciary will give them more leeway than we would like. However, the question becomes, if they can’t too seriously and substantively interfere with the right to the point of near destruction, will they bother? How will that alter the political dynamic? How will the next generation of federal judges look at the Second Amendment?
In the end, the Brady Campaign is right. It largely does take the extremes off the table. What they don’t realize is that’s far worse news for them than it is for us. It’s incumbent on us to expand the Heller majority. We’ve already missed two important opportunities for that. I agree with Professor Somin’s assessment that the two decisions we have speaks to the Heller/McDonald coalition of five justices to have breaking points.
Knife Rights Go Big Time?
I had to read the header at the top of the article twice just to make sure I wasn’t imagining things, because it’s that hard to believe the New York Times has written a two page article on the Knife Rights movement without getting completely hysterical. Talks about the success so far in Arizona and New Hampshire of getting knives deregulated and preempted.
If gun control is ridiculous, knife control is ten times so, because most people have more dangerous knives in their kitchen drawer than knives that are typically banned or restricted. Plus, I agree the Second Amendment protects the right to have bladed instruments just as much as it protects the right to have a firearm. It says to keep and bear arms, after all, not keep and bear guns.
Bloomberg Looking to Avoid a Lawsuit
“There’s no way I could vote on this. Since I’ve been in the council, we’ve voted on numerous bills where fees and fines were increased and it would send a strange message to New Yorkers that the one fine we look to reduce is the fee and fine to permit a gun,” Councilman Erik Dilan (D-Brooklyn), who did not attend the caucus, said.
Thank you, Erik Dilan, for calling it a “fine.” You’re making the inevitable multi-million dollar lawsuit against your city that much easier. Another fine council member notes wonders why they would get sued when the fee has been that high for years, as if length of time on the books has anything to do with a statutes constitutionality. What kind of screwed up place is New York City when Bloomberg is the pro-gun guy in this picture?
Concealed Carry Ban Unconstitutional
In Wisconsin, a judge has ruled it violates the Second Amendment.
SAF Chicago Case Update
John Richardson has some detailed information about the Ezell v. Chicago case, sponsored by SAF. Looks like the judge denied the preliminary injunction. It’s amazing what the City of Chicago is claiming in this case. They are literally worried that the parking lots of shooting ranges present a potential for criminal activity and accidents, and therefore we have to be protected from ourselves. That’s what they think of us. The judge in this case also seems to be treating the right to bear arms as a property right, which I think is improper.
It’s a shame we don’t have a more friendly Congress. I’d get Congress to charter a few indoor ranges in Chicago using their militia powers, open them to the public, and defy Daley to try to do anything about it.