But some locales already have such limits. Illinois has neither legal concealed nor open carry. Getting a permit to carry in a few other states can also be difficult.
The D.C. case has nothing to do with carrying a firearm in public. It had to do with just owning a handgun. Those are 2 different things.
Right. Sometimes I forget that the court can’t just seize the opportunity and rule on whatever it wants.
These are already covered by Federal laws. The one asbout mental illness reads something like, “…those adjudicated as mentally incompetent…”
In Massachusetts, you need a License to Carry (LTC) to purchase or own a handgun. It’s badly named - it can be restricted so that you can’t carry at all, just own and transport unloaded. It’s “may issue”, so the Chief has total discretion whether or not to issue one.
The Firearms Identification card (FID), is all that’s required for a non-high-capacity rifle or shotgun, and it’s “shall issue”.
There used to be a Permit to Purchase, which allowed you to buy a handgun and transport it straight home, where you could legally own it if you had an FID. It was still up to the Chief whether or not to issue one, and I believe it was eliminated when they revamped the license laws in 1998.
If the court holds that there’s a constitutional right to have a handgun in your house, then there necessarily has to be some right to have a gun outside the house, albeit a limited one. It wouldn’t make sense to say that the state must let you have a gun in your house, but that you can be arrested for taking a gun home from the gun store. Similarly, a constitutional right to have a gun in your house implies a right to keep the gun in working order, including taking it to a gun shop if needed. My point is that I expect anti-gun jurisdictions to try to keep this out-of-home possession as narrow as possible. Restrictions might include: you must go directly to and from the “approved” destination, you have to notify us ahead of time, you have to transport it unloaded and locked up, etc.
Unless these federal laws pre-empt state law (and I don’t know if they do) that doesn’t stop state or local governments from enacting more strict laws. For instance, the class of people adjudicated mentally incompetent is pretty small; a state or city might try a rule that anyone diagnosed with schizophrenia is ineligible for gun ownership, or anyone who’s been involuntarily held in a mental institution.
If the court holds that there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms, I expect that there will be years of follow-up cases which hash out the scope of the right.
They do.
Preëmption is not that simple. I do not know if there is an express preëmption clause in the federal gun laws, but I doubt it. If is not an express clause, then the courts will look to if there is implied preëmption and if there is a conflict; however, the general presumption is that the laws do not conflict and the court will work to reconcile the federal and state laws. I do not see why the examples that TJVM gave would be preëmpted unless there is an express preëmption clause in the federal gun legislation. And even if there is an express preëmption clause, it does not represent field preëmption so TJVM’s examples may not be preëmpted even with an express preëmption clause.
Jesus Christ, are you Vince Neil or something?
Federal law ALWAYS trumps State/County/City/Local/Moose Lodge/He-Man Woman Haters Club…etc. laws.
Did you guys drop out of 3rd grade civics class or what?
Federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict that cannot be reconciled. Just because the federal government has legislated in the field of gun control does not mean that the states are preëmpted from passing their own laws. This should be obvious since there are currently federal and state laws on gun control and state laws are upheld all the time. Why do you think the federal laws on gun control preëmpts state law? Is there an express preëmption clause in any of the federal gun control legislation? If not, how would the state laws conflict with federal law?
It is not like we are discussing ERISA.
I did not mean to imply that absent an express preëmption clause there must be a conflict. There could also be field preëmption or the legislation could be on an issue that is exclusively a federal concern (e.g., immigration).
I’m just curious… Two, why are you spelling mit umlauts?
If I could try to explain – there’s a difference between “trumps” and “pre-empts.”
Let’s say the feds say, “There’s a mandatory three-day waiting period to buy bullets.”
North Dakota passes a law that says, “There’s a mandatory one-day waiting period to buy bullets.”
South Dakota passes a law that says, “There’s a mandatory five-day waiting period to buy bullets.”
You might say to yourself, “Hey, easy: in North Dakota I have to wait three days, because of the federal law; the state law can’t reduce it. In South Dakota, I have to wait five days, because that meets the federal law and also the more restrictive state law.”
But maybe not.
Opponents of the South Dakota law might challenge it, claiming that because bullet waiting periods are regulated by Congress, the state no longer has any right to regulate it at all.
There’s a process to work out whether Congress’ regulation works with state law, or completely removes from the states any opportunity to legislate. That’s what 2½ is hinting at.
They’re diacritical marks, not umlauts.
:dubious:
Exactly.
I did a little research (and I do mean a little) and it looks like federal gun statutes do not pre-empt state laws (except, of course, where there’s a direct conflict): 44 U.S.C. 927. So, I think state and local governments can pass more restrictive laws, subject to whatever the constitutional constraints turn out to be.
“The umlaut is a diacritic consisting of a pair of dots or lines placed over a letter.”
Vhy ist der Two spelling mit der diacritical marks, den?
Alright. Explained in English I guess state laws can be stricter than federal unless:
That is the case in H.R. 218. Under state law in, say Illinois, I cannot legally carry a gun. But federal law trumps that and says I can.
It’s a diaeresis. A diacritical mark indicating that the author is pretentious, employed by The New Yorker, or both.
In Illinois it’s legal, in Chicago it aint. You have to have a permit to own a handgun in the city (if you aren’t police or active military or a licensed security guard). They haven’t issued a permit since the late 70’s early 80’s I believe.