The Countdown to McDonald v. Chicago

[geekWithA.45]

The idea was that, under the 1st Amendment, if you want to own a newspaper or radio station or TV station, you need to get a license from the government.

Incorrect, sir.

You do NOT need a license to own a newspaper, and it should offend any American to think that it is necessary.

The issue of licensing the airwaves is different, the premise being that the airwaves are a finite, shared resource that are organized and regulated in the public trust.

(Incidentally, that is a premise I do not personally support. Control of the airwaves was a federal power grab that dates back to 1934. If you read your history books, a shocking number of very different legislative acts empowering government at the expense of and abusive to Liberty happened in 1934. Ayn Rand makes a good case that federal regulation was a pure power grab, and not necessary to the operation of radio/TV.)

 

[LaEscopeta]

Federal control of broadcasting more or less is limited to activities that could cause interference with someone else broadcasting. Before the Federal Communication Act was passed, radio stations were building taller antennas and broadcasting with more power, to drown out competing radio stations. Also broadcasting on one frequency causes interference on frequencies a set distance up and down the radio spectrum. To get this under control the FCC was created to issue licenses to divide up available radio space. Part of the spectrum were set aside to not require licenses to broadcast (CB Radio) or a minimum fee license (marine radio, etc)

When you talk on your cell phone you are broadcasting without requiring license.

The above only relates to BROADCASTING, the Fed. Communication Act specifically states there are no controls on RECEIVING radio signals, unlike many other countries. This provision is in direct opposite to Virginia’s anti radar detector law, and the Federal law making it illegal to receive someone else’s cell phone broadcast.

You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled firearm related thread….

 

[Cosmoline]

The island-hopping analogy is a good one. As with that slow and difficult process, you won't see any dramatic results with these initial victories. They're setting the groundwork for the legal "invasion" to come. They're the air bases needed to clear the skies. But the work of actually tearing down 150+ years of anti-gun legislation going back to Jim Crow will be a slow slog.

Think of this as a second front. The political eastern front has been waged for our lifetimes and more, with many losses. This will give another route of attack even where the antis dominate the political landscape.

 

[Bubba613]

I don't know why people think McDonald will be earthshaking. Of course some people were saying if Heller went our way we'd all be strapping on sidearms wherever we live and going about peacefully armed.
That didnt happen.
Not much will change with McDonald either, unless you live in Chicago and are willing to go through ten kinds of hell to get a handgun permit to keep in your house. Look at the present state of the law in DC and that's what places like Chicago will look like.

 

[Deanimator]

Not much will change with McDonald either, unless you live in Chicago and are willing to go through ten kinds of hell to get a handgun permit to keep in your house. Look at the present state of the law in DC and that's what places like Chicago will look like.

The DC law is being challenged.

Defeatists never achieve anything but defeat.

 

[livewire98801]

Not much will change with McDonald either, unless you live in Chicago and are willing to go through ten kinds of hell to get a handgun permit to keep in your house. Look at the present state of the law in DC and that's what places like Chicago will look like.

That being said, and with the way Daley has been talking, I have a [very] faint hope that SCOTUS will address this in their decision. What's been done in DC (and will be done in Chi if nobody does anything to stop it) is clearly designed to circumvent the previous ruling.

I doubt that anyone, especially justices on the highest court in the land, likes the idea of someone intentionally going around a decision in such an obvious way. It's got to be insulting, DC is saying that the SCOTUS justices are wrong or stupid, and Chicago is poised to say "yeah, what they said ".

 

[mack]

Yes, I too have a faint hope - that the court will in dicta give additional guidance to the lower courts on how to handle the onerous restrictions imposed by DC after Heller and plannned by Daley should he lose. Such dicta would indicate a level scrutiny to apply to RKBA cases - hopefully strict scrutiny (the highest level as with the 1st amendment) which is customarily the case when dealing with a fundamental right.

However, I suspect they will not do that in their decision and will instead allow the lower courts to make a series of divergent opinions as to level of scrutiny which they will later address in another case. My concern is that the majority of five from Heller and presumably from McDonald may not be intact two or more years down the road and level of scrutiny may be set by a majority that agrees with the minority opinion in Heller - finding little to nothing violates the RKBA with a weak rational basis scrutiny.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I don't know why people think McDonald will be earthshaking. Of course some people were saying if Heller went our way we'd all be strapping on sidearms wherever we live and going about peacefully armed.
That didnt happen.
Not much will change with McDonald either, unless you live in Chicago and are willing to go through ten kinds of hell to get a handgun permit to keep in your house. Look at the present state of the law in DC and that's what places like Chicago will look like.

I'm sorry, but Heller has had a tremendous impact. But it's been more social than legal.

The Heller decision put the final seal of legitimacy on gun ownership. People are griping about the History Channel's "Top Shots" program...but that show would never have been made three years ago. More and more people are learning to shoot, including many who have never done so before. And it's not all Obama's doing. Heller is like Brown vs Board of Education - it's a formal declaration that government-mandated bigotry is illegal.

From a legal standpoint, Heller is also big. All the fantasies of a nationwide gun ban are dead, dead, dead. Bans on a given broad class of firearm are equally dead. Now the fight is over details. And with good legal work, we can win most of those. And it's showing in the fundraising of our opponents. They've been reduced to penury...and soon will be as welcome in American politics as the KKK.

 

[livewire98801]

They've been reduced to penury...and soon will be as welcome in American politics as the KKK.

If we keep up the fight. As soon as we get overconfident, we'll have another "Assault Weapon" Ban. I won't feel like we've won the war until my Concealed Pistol License is ruled to be redundant to the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, I know that won't be anytime soon. But I can hope, right?

 

[natman]

I'm sorry, but Heller has had a tremendous impact. But it's been more social than legal.

The Heller decision put the final seal of legitimacy on gun ownership. People are griping about the History Channel's "Top Shots" program...but that show would never have been made three years ago. More and more people are learning to shoot, including many who have never done so before. And it's not all Obama's doing. Heller is like Brown vs Board of Education - it's a formal declaration that government-mandated bigotry is illegal.

From a legal standpoint, Heller is also big. All the fantasies of a nationwide gun ban are dead, dead, dead. Bans on a given broad class of firearm are equally dead. Now the fight is over details. And with good legal work, we can win most of those. And it's showing in the fundraising of our opponents. They've been reduced to penury...and soon will be as welcome in American politics as the KKK.

Right on. Some seem to think that Heller made no difference because they couldn't carry a bazooka concealed without a permit the next day.

Social change takes time. In 1954 the Supreme Court in Brown v Board of Education outlawed school segregation. Yet, nine years later in 1963 George Wallace swore: "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Schools were desegregated nevertheless.

Like George Wallace, the anti-gun bigots won't take their defeat easily. But they will take it.

If you don't think Heller has made a difference, just imagine what it would be like if Heller had lost.

 

[geekWithA.45]

just imagine what it would be like if Heller had lost.

It would not have been pretty, and the phrase "definitive end of the Republic" wouldn't be too farfetched.

 

[230therapy]

everallm,

I did read the decision and they stated that reasonable restrictions are allowed. Furthermore, they defined which arms are allowed...as opposed to all.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

This is so wrong it's unbelievable. The reason it is wrong is because NO justification is needed for the expression of a right.

And the rest of it is justifying infringements.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I did read the decision and they stated that reasonable restrictions are allowed. Furthermore, they defined which arms are allowed...as opposed to all....This is so wrong it's unbelievable. The reason it is wrong is because NO justification is needed for the expression of a right....

Welcome to life in the real world.

In any case, your view of things notwithstanding, it is well established law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited governmental regulation as long as certain standards are met. So even if the Court in Heller did not adopt your sweeping view of "shall not be infringed", there was no reasonable expectation that they would.

What we did get from Heller, and what is really a very big deal in the scheme of things, was an unequivocal judicial ruling that the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right. And if, as we hope, we get a ruling in McDonald that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to the States, that will also be a big deal in the scheme of things.

 

[Art Eatman]

We've wandered away from McDonald...