Will MacDonald Mean Right to Carry?

[bushmaster1313]

Living in New jersey as a law abiding citizen I interact with the government in two ways.

The government takes my money

The government will not let me carry a gun to protect me, my family or my house of worship.
The law allows concealed carry permits but the police and the courts have discretion to deny and they always do.

I believe MacDonald should turn all states into right to carry states. The Constitution may allow states to regulate or prohibit concealed carry, but the right to bear arms certainly means to bear arms while walking outside one's home. So if not concealed carry then the right to carry. Permits might be allowed, but if there is a Constitutional right to bear arms it cannot be at the discretion of a two bit beaurocrat.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Will MacDonald Mean Right to Carry?

No. That will be decided in a case following McDonald.

Heller was the beginning. McDonald is not the end nor ist it the beginning of the end.... but (to paraphrase Churchill) a successfull conclusion in McDonald may well be the end of the beginning.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Leage Eagle:

MacDonald will hopefully find a right to keep arms in one's home based on the application of an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies to the states.

If there is a right to bear arms how can it be at the discretion of a government official?

For example:

"Excuse me, could you please explain why I should issue you a permit to read that newspaper."

 

[BudMan5]

McDonald v Chicago has nothing toi do with the right to carry

Chicago actually has a ban on possession of firearms en toto by residents of Chicago (and Oak Park, a suburb).

McDonald sued the City of Chicago for violating his rights as described in the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS will decide if the 2nd Amendment applies to residents of the States. Heller decided that the 2nd Amendment did apply to residents of Federal land (like the District of Columbia).

The right to carry in Illinois will only happen when there is a law passed by the State legilature. That almost happeneed two years ago but it was stopped by the NRA because it did not include residents of Chicago.

The right to carry in Illinois is still a long way off. As long as the Chicago politicians, who make up half of the Senate and the House, do not want citizens to have the right to carry, it won't happen.

 

[bushmaster1313]

If there is a right to bear arms it should only be subject to reasonable regulation not prohibition.

I wonder what the best venue would be for a right to carry test case?

 

[2009_gunner]

The right to carry is not in McDonald (which only will allow people to buy a gun for the home)

The right to carry is being addressed in two other nearly identical lawsuits by Alan Gura.

The first is already active in DC (Palmer)
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia

The other is in California (Sykes), and is delayed until McDonald is decided in June:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness

One of these two lawsuits will probably have to make it to the United States Supreme Court before Chicago and the rest of the country gets back the Right to Carry(Bear) Arms.

 

[mack]

McDonald by itself will not allow for ccw, but Gura and other have cases in the pipeline to address the right to bear arms as in ccw and/or open carry. As most states have some type of carry law and a majority have shall issue - if the 2nd is ruled to apply to the states there is a good chance that it may be found by the courts that there is a right to bear arms and that a state cannot ban both open and ccw. If such a follow on ruling comes down then Illinois may be in the position of either passing a shall issue ccw law or face the prospect of a court ruling that failing any statute, a citizen in Illinois can carry a gun openly or concealed without licensing. I think at that point the legislature in Springfield would quickly move to pass a shall issue ccw law.

So my best guess would be ccw legislation will happen in Illinois in the next 2 to 3 years - because the legislature will be essentially forced to do so by the courts.

 

[bushmaster1313]

SJ Brief in the Palmer Right to carry case
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.5.1.pdf

 

[05FLHT]

Mack, I think your reasoning is spot on.

 

[mack]

Thanks bushmaster1313 that was interesting reading. I may stand corrected on the 2 to 3 year time frame if McDonald wins. The Palmer case, if it wins too, includes non-resident right to carry in DC. If that happens then non-residents of Illinois could in theory be able to carry in Illinois - the prospect of which might force the state government to act even sooner.

Edit to add: didn't see your post 05FLT - was reading and typing - you're welcome - hope I'm right.