Article: Top 10 Most Important Gun Rights Cases of 2016 - Do you agree?

[Aim1]

The article says that: shall issue, upholding the PLCAA, assault weapon bans, open/concealed carry, drones, 3D printing, domestic assault, pre-emption, medical marijuana, and mental health will be the biggest gun rights cases of 2016.







http://www.outdoorlife.com/top-most-important-10-gun-related-court-cases-2016#page-2

Top 10 Most Important Gun Rights Cases of 2016

BY JOHN HAUGHEY 1 HOUR AGO

When President-elect Donald Trump assumes office on Jan. 20, he will inherit the immediate responsibility of nominating a Supreme Court Justice to succeed the late Antonin Scalia. During the next four years, he could appoint at least two more justices with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, and Anthony Kennedy, 80, both liberals, nearing retirement.

Supreme Court decisions are, of course, the most closely followed of legal rulings. They are often the penultimate finales of intricate cases that have been working their way through state and federal courts for years.

Since 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago ruling, however, the Supreme Court has not accepted any significant cases directly related to the Second Amendment. Therefore, once again, 2016’s most interesting and potentially important rulings were issued in federal circuit or district courts, or in state courts.

I've asked what you thought were the most important gun rights in general from this list:

a. Strict Scrutiny required for the 2nd Amendment

b. Carry outside of the home

c. 'Assault Weapons' (semi-automatic rifles) are legal

d. 'High-Capacity' (standard capacity) magazines are legal

e. Carry across all state for all citizens is legal

f. Suppressors are legal in all states and can be bought just like any other firearm accessory no longer requiring NFA restrictions

g. Trigger locks/locking up weapons restrictions are not legal in the home

h. Background checks for ammo are illegal

i. Excessive taxes on guns/ammo are illegal

j. Private sales to individuals do not require a background check

k. Other rights........



What do you think will be the most important gun rights cases of 2016 and what are the most important cases to you?

 

[gbran]

The article says that: shall issue, upholding the PLCAA, assault weapon bans, open/concealed carry, drones, 3D printing, domestic assault, pre-emption, medical marijuana, and mental health will be the biggest gun rights cases of 2016.

Hopefully something that will set a precedent that will smack down many CA laws.





http://www.outdoorlife.com/top-most-important-10-gun-related-court-cases-2016#page-2







I've asked what you thought were the most important gun rights in general from this list:

a. Strict Scrutiny required for the 2nd Amendment

b. Carry outside of the home

c. 'Assault Weapons' (semi-automatic rifles) are legal

d. 'High-Capacity' (standard capacity) magazines are legal

e. Carry across all state for all citizens is legal

f. Suppressors are legal in all states and can be bought just like any other firearm accessory no longer requiring NFA restrictions

g. Trigger locks/locking up weapons restrictions are not legal in the home

h. Background checks for ammo are illegal

i. Excessive taxes on guns/ammo are illegal

j. Private sales to individuals do not require a background check

k. Other rights........



What do you think will be the most important gun rights cases of 2016 and what are the most important cases to you?

 

[denton]

I suspect that many of our worst gun laws will go by the board over the next decade or two. Some guesses on what will and won't happen (Bear in mind you can really wreck your reputation as a forecaster by predicting what the Supreme Court will do.):

Strict scrutiny for gun laws: That ship has probably already sailed. Not going to happen. It's a now a mix of intermediate and strict scrutiny.

Interstate recognition of concealed carry permits: Decent chance. Trump already mentioned this as a possibility.

2A applies to firearms outside the home: Very good chance.

Cannot excessively tax firearms or ammunition: Gimmee putt if SCOTUS ever takes the case. The Minneapolis Star Tribune 1A case basically says you can't use taxation to prevent people from exercising their fundamental, protected rights.

High capacity magazine bans struck down: Very good chance. All things essential to a right are as protected as the right itself. A magazine is a functioning part of many firearms, and is as protected as the firearms are. If you can't ban a semi-auto handgun, you can't ban one of its essential parts.

Trigger locks, locking up guns: With or without a specific law, you are liable if a guest comes into your home, picks up one of your guns, and injures someone. That's going to stay. Now whether trigger lock laws are constitutional is another issue. Can't guess where this one will go. I live in a free state, and my firearms are locked up most of the time. We open the door to the small safe in our bedroom when we go to bed. I frequently carry when I'm home during the day.

Other candidates: I think the Illinois FOID card will eventually go away, as will the California "approved firearm" list. So also the CA regulations on readily removable magazines.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Since this is a public forum I'll be 100% honest right now.

I really don't follow them. Like, at all. I'm into firearms for the joy of shooting. I'm a member of the NRA but that's as far as my activism really goes. I just do not have the attention span or interest to pour over the legal issues regarding guns and researching court cases etc. I'm glad others find that kind of thing interesting though. Yes I know, I'm a bad person. Spare me.

 

[GAF]

I am thinking that some of the worst places in America for gun ownership will cling to the laws they have . They will fight tooth and nail to keep those laws. I don`t expect much to change in the short term and minor changes in the long term.

 

[denton]

Yes I know, I'm a bad person. Spare me.

Not at all a bad person. Some people are interested in one thing, others in another. It's part of what makes life interesting.

 

[DustyGmt]

I wish we could pursue the lawful posession of full auto firearms with a simple background check, I know that's not currently on the table but I wish it was. It bothers me to think that in all probability I will never get that experience. Full auto-full fun. What the heck!

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Denton wrote: <<< Strict scrutiny for gun laws: That ship has probably already sailed. Not going to happen. It's a now a mix of intermediate and strict scrutiny>>>

The lower courts will continue to blindly apply intermediate scrutiny, to which the higher courts will ultimately apply strict scrutiny, effectively shooting down or altering many gun laws.

For example, the simplest and costs-only way to issue concealed handgun permits is to use the federal background check or something similar. Let us hear from somebody who thinks they can make a valid legal argument for a lower form of scrutiny instead.

You gotta love this quote from the Kolbe-Hogan case: <<<We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester>>>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1945

Stay tuned.

 

[svtruth]

Gun Locks
We used to live in RI; their laws stipulate that if someone commits a crime in gaining access to your firearm, you are held harmless for any thing they may do with it.

 

[zb338]

I would like to see legal carry in all States not just the ones that have legal carry now.
New Jersey is a neighboring State to me. They do not allow personal carry of firearms
except in dire cases where someone has had their lives threatened. There should be
a Federal carry permit where a certified person could carry everywhere.
Zeke

 

[Metal God]

I like all of those but in states like CA . The legislature passes multiple anti gun laws every year ( lets just say 5 a year ). We then must challenge them in court . The problem is it takes 4 years to just get one overturned . So that's a ratio of 20 anti gun laws passed to every one we get overturned . That is an unwinnable ratio guys not to mention impossible to fund . We need private money to fight every law while the state get to use unlimited resources and budget to defend them . Unwinnable in CA !

Then there the issue of states like CA , NY ,and city's like Chicago and San Francisco that will refuse to recognize any federal law that goes against what they want . Like legalized marijuana , sanctuary city's etc etc . So I'm not sure if any new laws or law suits being overturned will really help us over here on the left coast .

 

[natman]

Then there the issue of states like CA , NY ,and city's like Chicago and San Francisco that will refuse to recognize any federal law that goes against what they want . Like legalized marijuana , sanctuary city's etc etc . So I'm not sure if any new laws or law suits being overturned will really help us over here on the left coast .

There is a precedent. In 1957 the Supreme Court outlawed school segregation in Brown v Board of Education. Yet many states refused to actually do it. Finally the President and the Attorney General decided the National Guard had to be sent in to force it to happen.

The foundation for similar equality in gun laws has been laid in Heller and McDonald. We just haven't had a President and an Attorney General who were willing to actually enforce them. At least not yet.

 

[Metal God]

That may be true but i believe that would have been easier to enforce . How is the AG going to make sure l can carry a loaded firearm in public ? No national guard is coming to my home to escort me to the store while i carry . Mean while Local law inforcement still arrest anyone carrying and we have to pay for the fight through the courts .

How specifically can the federal government force a state to let an individual carry a firearm in a state that refusses to allow it ?

They can withhold funding but that takes a vote from congress . I can see that happening with sanctuary city's but not carrying a firearm

 

[plodder]

I wish we could pursue the lawful posession of full auto firearms with a simple background check, I know that's not currently on the table but I wish it was. It bothers me to think that in all probability I will never get that experience. Full auto-full fun. What the heck!

Why not? I thought Vermont was a free state. If not, drop me a note next time you travel through Northwestern WI and I will let you conduct a mag dump or 2 if you bring your own ammo.

 

[DustyGmt]

Why not? I thought Vermont was a free state. If not, drop me a note next time you travel through Northwestern WI and I will let you conduct a mag dump or 2 if you bring your own ammo.

I certainly will do if I'm ever in the area. Most likely never will be but it's nice to know the offers there.

 

[wally]

I'm a member of the NRA but that's as far as my activism really goes. I just do not have the attention span or interest to pour over the legal issues regarding guns and researching court cases etc. I'm glad others find that kind of thing interesting though. Yes I know, I'm a bad person. Spare me.

If you go to the "contact your representatives" pages that have been setup at nraila.org you can become a good person with minimal effort and a few minutes of your time.

Just go there periodically, and check out the Alerts for your State and Federal and push the "Take Action" buttons to send Emails to your representatives.

Easy Peasy.


As to excessive taxation, "poll" taxes have been declared unconstitutional, so there is strong precedent that they can't tax away Second Amendment rights.