Okay, so the good guys won in McDonald vs. Chicago. This is a good thing. Folks are wondering what this will mean for other locations - mainly CA, NY, MA, and other gun-unfriendly states - the win in Chicago was a close one, and should have been about as close to a slam dunk as possible. Chicago's total ban on handguns, even more draconian than the DC regulations overturned by the Heller decision, seemed like the perfect place to start the campaign to use the Heller decision to repeal unconstitutional gun laws.
So, naturally, when we hear "unconstitutional gun laws", Massachusetts comes to mind almost immediately. MA has what can be considered the trifecta of onerous gun laws:
1. "Approved Firearms Roster". While technically a "consumer protection act", it's a list of what handguns can - and by exclusion cannot - be sold in Massachusetts.
2. Assault Weapons Ban. Bans semi-automatic rifles based on certain features. Based on the Federal ban that expired six years ago and limits magazine capacity for long arms and handguns.
3. "May issue" permitting. In MA, it is completely up to the whim of the local Chief of Police as to who gets a permit to own a firearm. FID permits - which cover shotguns and low-capacity longarms (10 rounds and under for semi-automatic rifles) - are "shall issue", everything else is "may issue" according to the CoP.
MA is one of only a select few states which require permits simply to own a firearm (NJ, HI and IL are the others); and MA alone is "may issue" for long arms - the other states issue permits for long arms on a "shall issue" basis. MA puts restrictions on what handguns can be owned in the state, specifically what can be sold by dealers. MA also puts restrictions on what types of longarms can be sold. MA imposes felony-level penalties for possession of high capacity magazines.
Looking at the McDonald decision, it's possible that MA could face challenges in all three areas. The permitting aspect is the most formidable one - the entire concept of "may issue" flies in the face of the concept of "the right to keep and bear arms" not being infringed. Giving one person - the local chief of police - absolutely power over who gets a carry permit and who does not - with no accountability whatsoever - is not a system which supports the basic tenets set forth in the Second Amendment. Justice Alito called the right to have a gun in the home a "fundamental" right - it's quite possible that "may issue" as it is practiced in MA may become the lynch pin to overturn the concept of "may issue" entirely, or at least significantly reform it.
In a state such as MA, where a permit is required to simply possess a firearm and the types of firearms one can possess may be arbitrarily and capriciously curtailed based solely on the whim of the local permitting agency, it's quite possible that someone could be denied a permit to own a handgun. This is in direct opposition to the rulings in both Heller and McDonald, where the right to possess a handgun was deemed to be a fundamental right - MA might possibly be the fulcrum to move the "May Issue" states into the "Shall Issue" category. It may take a brave person who is denied their Class A or B LTC (for pistols) to push this aspect, but the benefits would be immense - taking the power to grant a permit, which is really the power to deny a right, away from a person or persons with no accountability is a good first step.
It's hard to see how the "Approved Firearms Roster" will stand, given that CA's "safe gun" list is already coming under fire thanks to the SAF (and go answer Newbius's challenge to join SAF while you're at it). DC adopted CA's list in the wake of Heller, and as a result the need to challenge the CA list becomes doubly important - if/when this is struck down, it's hard to see how MA wouldn't follow suit. It wouldn't be surprising to see MA lose the requirement altogether should CA's "safe gun" list be found to be unconstitutional.
And lastly, the MA assault weapons ban. Once again, it's hard to see how a law banning certain types of weapons simply because they contain a certain amount of a certain type of feature makes any sense whatsoever. This concept has been illustrated before, but in a nutshell, a firearm can be legal or illegal based solely on the presence - or absence - of a single piece of metal. It may fire the same round. It may fire that same round in exactly the same manner. Yet if one iteration has a bayonet lug and the other doesn't, one version is legal while the other is a felony. This is the hardest to see falling, as only affects a certain class of weapons and is simply defeated (pin the stock, grind off the bayonet lug, etc.).
In any case, it will be interesting and instructive to see what kind of challenges come down the gun control pike as a result of McDonald. Personally, I'd like to see MA lose the "May-Issue" aspect most of all - it would be nice to not go into a blind panic every 5 years whe it becomes license renewal time... Losing the AWB would be a close second - I'd love to be able to put a collapsible stock on my Bushmaster, or a folding on my AK-47 clone. Not to mention being able to buy magazines again...
We're making good progress, that's for sure; now's the time to start pushing the issue slowly but firmly...
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm not taking anything for granted yet regarding McDonald. A post linked by Instapundit described a really bizarre aspect of the McDonald decision: the city won both halves of the case, yet lost the overall case.
1) They argued that their gun bans were constitutional under the Due Process clause, and won 5-4.
2) They argued their gun ban was constitutional under the Privileges and Immunities clause, and won 8-1.
But the 1 in the second argument was one of the 4 in the first argument. Thus, considered as a whole, 5 justices voted to overturn the gun ban, so the gun ban is gone.
That's a sufficiently screwy result that I don't think it actually settles anything at all. I wouldn't even use McDonald as a basis for predicting the outcome of future cases.
You left out NY, my friend...NY is a May Issue, where you have to first get a license before you can even go to a store and *touch* a pistol, let alone put a deposit on one...
And I gotta agree with Wolfwalker...the decision was too narrow to be of much use, but at least the groundwork is there for a challenge on the *may issue* states to force them to be Shall Issue...
I can't wait to see how Bloomberg tries to dance through *that* one...
Agreed on the renewing the license thing. There's a good possibility that Mike and I will move when we get a house; we'll have to find a town where they're likely to renew rather than yank.
One note on NJ: both permits to purchase, the lifetime FID and the one-time-use Permit to Purchase (Handgun permit), are shall-issue.
In fact, NJ could make a couple of very simple changes to their system and become much more pro-rights. (Assume that vermont-style regulations aren't happening. I'll dance for joy if they are required, but don't see it).
Collapse permit to purchase and permit to possess (carry license) into FID. Require issuance on the spot of the FID after NICS check (no 30-day wait). Raise fee paid to the state to the amount charged by the feds for NICS and ONLY charge that fee (this is actually important - NJ is in a tremendous budget crisis, and the current fee structure is such that the cops charge a ridiculous "fingerprinting" fee).
It ain't perfect, but it's an incremental step towards there that is likely to happen sometime this decade.
Mazal Tov! But...
Certainly we want to win the legal battles. But most gun owners also strongly believe in rule by consent of the governed, as opposed to rule by the robed.
Let's celebrate, but also not let ourselves be turned into "progressives" who only care to bypass the legislative process and let the robed priests run the show. Let's make McDonald a moot point by putting elected officials in place who will pass the right statutes.
Let's do that one new gun owner at a time.
Amen, JM!
>MA is one of only a select few states which require permits simply to own a firearm (NJ, HI and IL are the others);
Yes and no. My understanding about what NJ at least has (unfamiliar with Hawaii) is you get issued a permit to purchase whatever gun it is you want. What Illinois has is a Firearm Owner's ID (aka FOID). Without which, thou mayest not buy or touch guns or ammo. NEIN! With FOID, buy whatever you want that's legal, whenever you want. No state registration.
The odd part is, the FOID law has a provision for out of state folks to purchase without FOID. You heard that right -- nonresidents have more rights than residents.
Just another bad law that needs to go away, ASAP.
True enough - the FID card that I refer to is technically a Firearms PURCHASER card; you don't have to have one to possess any firearm within a list of tight restrictions. Though it does allow you to possess an unloaded longarm (for legal purposes) outside of the grounds of an educational institution.
Since you ALSO have to have one to purchase handgun ammo (undefined in law) outside of a range, it's practically required to have one (esp since many stores card you for ANY ammo purchase).
BTW - don't get me wrong - I *want* vermont-style regulation :) I think what I suggested was a good start on the road there, is all.
I rather hope that one of the bits of fallout from McDonald is someone suing NJ in federal court for not following their own damn laws in regards the issuance of permits, on the way to declaring the entire concept of waiting periods not cricket
So glad that one of the few things that work in Ohio is our gun laws. But we can't use rifles to hunt deer in this state. We're restricted to shotgun, blackpowder, bow, handgun, no license if you have 20 acres or more (just haul it to the Weigh Station), and if you live in Southern Ohio, and can hit what you're aiming at, you can take up to 6 mixed Buck and Doe. This doesn't take into account turkey, duck, feral hog, rabbit ,squirrel, coyote.... Of course, if you don't hunt , you just have to be content with "Shall Issue" CCW and Castle Doctrine...
The only area where MA is likely to be vulnerable is on discretionary licensing. Neither Heller nor McDonald changed anything about what types of firearms may or may not be authorized.
The SJC held that discretionary licensing by police chiefs did not fall under due process. McDonald is very likely to change that to some extent.
The states still retain the right to restrict access to some types of firearms. What those types are, would seem to be up to the states.
McDonald was another important step forward in restoring gun owners rights, but it is no where near the last one.
Post a Comment