King of all 2nd Amendment/incorporation cases MSJ

[ArmedBear]

The gauntlet has been thrown down, with a motion for summary judgment in a Federal District Court.

Read the Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

This encompasses both incorporation AND the right to carry.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=210067

CalGuns Foundation, SAF, and individual plaintiffs are suing for shall-issue in California. Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer are the attorneys listed on the motion for summary judgment.

Kinda makes me nervous...

 

[gmark340]

NJ next, please.

 

[Vibe]

There IS precedent.

•Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
- Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

 

[CoRoMo]

We come to it at last.

 

[2aHawaii]

Hawaii too, please

 

[ArmedBear]

If the plaintiffs prevail (and it will probably go all the way to SCOTUS), Hawaii and New Jersey would have to obey the decision, same as California.

 

[gbran]

If the plaintiffs prevail (and it will probably go all the way to SCOTUS), Hawaii and New Jersey would have to obey the decision, same as California.

Why NJ?

 

[tasco 74]

my copy of the constitution STILL says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFINGED...................................

 

[ArmedBear]

Why NJ?

It's a Federal case, that will be appealed all the way unless it's overtaken by another similar case.

 

[Eightball]

Would this one be a "better" SCOTUS case than some of the other ones winding their way through the federal system?

 

[ArmedBear]

Would this one be a "better" SCOTUS case than some of the other ones winding their way through the federal system?

I can't keep track of them all.

However, this case specifically addresses the right to carry or "bear arms" for self-defense, outside the home. It also goes right after "may issue" and sets up a "either concealed or open, but not neither" test for the "right to bear arms."

I'm not sure if others do.

 

[gc70]

The motion for summary judgement in Sykes is a lot weaker than it would have been if Nordyke had not been suspended pending an en banc rehearing.

 

[Grump]

The precedents which Sotomayor and her usually outcome-oriented cronies will self-righteously insist must be followed to keep the Feds out of state-level 2nd Amendment jurisprudence were decided BEFORE all First Amendment protections were applied against the states through incorporation.

Since the First Amendment's "plain language", to use Sotomayor's last misguided but unsuccessful attempt to selectively apply controlling precedent, much more clearly applies to Federal actions by saying "Congress shall make no law. . .", the reasons to incorporate First Amendment protections against the states apply even more strongly as a basis to to have Second Amendment protection of pre-existing rights included in 14th Amendment incorporation against the individual states.

The drafters of the Second Amendment had a choice to include the "Congress shall make no law" language, but did not. Instead, they used an introductory clause to explain the central government's legitimate interest in preserving a pre-existent right which would otherwise be none of their business to fiddle with. The notable exception, of course, regards citizens who forfeit the right to keep and bear ANY arms by being violent felons. A far more simple remedy for that forfeiture of rights by violent felons, however, is forfeiture of life. No "prohibited persons" lists, but that should apply only to killers, kidnappers, violent rapists, armed robbers, and adult arsonists anyway.

The "crime inflation" (think the "grade inflation" scandals at state-run colleges in the 1970s) of felonizing almost everything cheapens and weakens the seriousness of, and the rightful public outrage over, traditional felonies.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm sure it will be denied. That's the point.

SAF, CGF and Gura aren't doing this to get a summary judgment for three Californians who want to get a CCW.

Said motion is just a "don't think you can just blow us off" motion.