If the SC strikes down DC's gun law, what weaselly restrictions will cities try?

Great Debates
1

Could they for example require guns owners to put up a three-million dollar bond against wrongful-death liability? Could they drag their feet on granting permits by refusing to fund the appropriate departments?

(I realize though that probably a definitive answer will depend on the exact wording of such a ruling).

2

Massachusetts makes you beg the local police chief for a permit. Some police chiefs automatically deny any type of gun permit to almost everyone. They know in their hearts that virtually everyone in their area is stupid, evil, and incompetent in every way possible. Maybe one day they will find a virtuous person but, until then, no permits. There you go. It seems to constitutional at the moment as well.

3

I haven’t studied the case carefully, but I don’t think it will have much of an effect. As far as I know, DC is the only place in the US where law abiding citizens face serious hurdles in keeping pistols and revolvers in their residences.

Even in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, it’s not too difficult to legally obtain a handgun to just keep in your house.

4

I think the restrictions will be more ferretty than weaselly, with just a touch of gopherish.

And if you vole for that, you’ll vole for anything.

5

In the brief interrum between the SC striking the law down and new ones being created, it’s probably be best to squirrel away some guns while you can.

6

Answer: everything within their power.

7

Absolutely. And if you can’t afford to buy a gun, perhaps you can burrow one.

8

Brazil84, meet Chicago!

From: Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia

IMO, Chicago’s law will be shitcanned if DC’s law is.

9

Is the 2nd amendment even incorporated? I thought it doesn’t apply to state law and only to federal law.

Isn’t a gun ban being constitutionally challenged in D.C. because D.C. is ultimately governed under federal law?

In my amateur legal opinion I don’t think this ruling will be binding to other cities.

10

They’ll ban ammo, or tax it @ $10 per round. :rolleyes: Or they will ban loaded guns and define loaded as the gun and the ammo being in the same location, read house. :rolleyes: Or they will require a class that is held once a year in the State capital with no notice and only the 1st 20 allowed to take it. :dubious: etc.

11

2nd Amendment has not been incorporated, but maybe the court will do that, too.

Another thing is IIRC several states have 2nd amendment-like clauses in their constitutions. I’m not sure if those are enforced by their state supreme courts or not, but I bet in a lot of states they are.

12

Thank you . . I had no idea.

From: Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia

IMO, Chicago’s law will be shitcanned if DC’s law is.
[/QUOTE]

I basically agree, i.e. Chicago will probably have to start accepting new handgun registrations. I look forward to reading Judge Posner’s opinion on the subject.

13

A permit to own a firearm, or a permit to carry?

The D.C. case is about owning a handgun, not being able to carry it in public.

14

From what I’ve read, in some localities, they never seem to have the ownership permit forms available to the public, and if you do submit the form, the police just toss it in the trash.

15

Like the CA “assault weapon” registration where PD’s were not given anywhere near enough forms. Thus the guns could not be regsitered in time. Then, IIRC, they said they were extending the period as they got more forms, so quite a few dudes came in and registered. Then they said the extention was not legal, and all those guns had to be disposed of.

16

Assuming the ruling is narrow – there’s a constitutional right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense – I would expect anti-gun jurisdictions to try restrictions like these:

  1. Limits on the number of guns in a home, perhaps one per home or one per adult.
  2. Strict limits on taking guns out of your home, such as, only for transport directly to or from a shooting range or a gun shop. (An aggressive jurisdiction might even require some kind of pre-notification when you’re doing that, to prevent people from carrying guns and then, if they’re caught, claiming they were just on the way to the shooting range.)
  3. Extensive registration requirements – you have to keep the city up to date on what guns you have, their serial numbers, when and how you dispose of them, etc.
  4. Exclusions for certain categories of people. I suspect that even if SCOTUS finds an individual right to own a gun, they’ll allow certain people to be excluded. But, there’ll probably be debate about who will be excludable like this: convicted felons? people convicted of violent crimes? people convicted of any crimes? people with a history of mental ilness? domestic violence?

…and, of course, harsh penalties for any violation of the above, even technical violations.

17

Not in this case.

18

They’ll find some way to gavel the guns into extinction. (Except the ones in the pockets of the crooks, naturally.) I wouldn’t put it past them to extend the definition of “mentally ill” to include anyone ever treated for any kind of depression, anxiety or any other run-of-the-mill problem. Ever had a prescription for an antidepressant? Suicidal, no gun for you. Ever had a prescription for Xanax or Valium? Paranoid, no gun for you. I think they’d do it.

19

Of course, the last thing that would occur to any of us would be to ask the relevant officials what they would do as that would ruin a good conspiracy theory.

20

Who would the relevant officials be? If you mean the Court, they’ll tell you later this month. If you mean the local politicians, they’ll be glad to tell you. In fact, by reading the local statutes from wherever you live, you’ll find that they’ve already told you.

So, who do you ask?