Because this case can affect that case, and be cited in a third case, DOMA Decision

[JimDandy]

Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New
York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.

So when the States pass a law that protects firearms rights- Say those nullification laws?- Can they now point to the Justice Kennedy here?

The Decision is here That's all sorts of 5A and 10A goodness I see so far.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the whole thing but I find it interesting that we have, in very short order, two SCOTUS decisions:

1)Arizona Immigration law, that basically says that the state authority may not interfere in matters that are under Federal control.

2)DOMA, which basically says that the Federal authority may not interfere with matters that are under state control.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the myriad effects that this could have on gun rights.

 

[JimDandy]

Well it's going to come down to who has firearms control. Or which aspect of it. We're seeing a pretty good court I think... that's walking that fine line of the division of governing labor. What is the Feds is the Feds, what is the State's is the State's. Meaning the Fed's may control interstate trade on them, but not who can own what where.

 

[csmsss]

And not one but three separate dissents to plow through. Uggh.

 

[csmsss]

One thing is clear, while we're discussing DOMA - it is not long before a full faith and credit suit works its way up the chain and the likely result is that states will be required to recognize each others' marriages, period.

 

[zukiphile]

And not one but three separate dissents to plow through. Uggh.

The parts I've read are cogent and entertaining.

 

[csmsss]

The parts I've read are cogent and entertaining.

I hadn't read any of them when I first posted - but Scalia's is classic Scalia. I almost hate to see him on the winning side of a case because his dissents are so much more fun to read.

 

[Tom Servo]

Meaning the Fed's may control interstate trade on them, but not who can own what where.

That's well and good, except for the fact that nearly any good could be construed to affect interstate commerce by our current interpretation (see Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard).

Scalia's dissent opens with this:

And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.

He focuses quite a bit on whether or not the Court itself has exaggerated the authority implied by Marbury.

 

[zukiphile]

He focuses quite a bit on whether or not the Court itself has exaggerated the authority implied by Marbury.

And he does it well, too. I cannot guarantee that I agree with everything Scalia writes, but I nearly always enjoy his clarity.

Particularly persuasive is his explanation that since the litigants are in full agreement, there is no case or controversy to decide. In the long run, no matter the result of an individual case, I find result oriented jurisprudence to be a disease that ultimately cripples the real authority of courts.

 

[carguychris]

...I find it interesting that we have, in very short order, two SCOTUS decisions:

1)Arizona Immigration law, that basically says that the state authority may not interfere in matters that are under Federal control.

2)DOMA, which basically says that the Federal authority may not interfere with matters that are under state control.

I find the logic consistent between the two cases: a state cannot impose broad and burdensome restrictions on conduct that is widely allowable and unrestricted elsewhere.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the myriad effects that this could have on gun rights.

So am I, but if one follows the logic outlined above, the precedent in both cases could be very good for gun rights- specifically, for the move towards a consistent national CCW standard.

I don't think a federal CCW law has a chance anymore, because the recent partisan rancor and divisiveness over proposed gun control has poisoned the proverbial well. I think the issue will be decided in the courts rather than by federal statute. The more cases that uphold a uniform standard, the better.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The thing is, immigration is traditionally a federal issue and marriage is traditionally a state issue but firearms have no such tradition on either side. Now, I could (and do) make the argument that virtually all federal level gun laws are unconstitutional so it SHOULD be a state level issue but that's simply not the legal/political reality. I'm not really sure what the real world application of these decisions would be, concerning gun rights.

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Yeah Brian, its a really rocky issue. People from my home state (Texas) want gun rights to be strictly by the state, whereas people in my current state (California) are salivating at the mouth for a supreme court case to overthrow their bogus laws.

While I selfishly want the ladder because of my career choice, Im on the fence morally and politically.

 

[JerryM]

There are also those who want a law that requires all states to recognize all other states CW licenses.
That is a very slippery slope. Do you want the states to have the rights or the Feds?

If the feds can dictate that states must do something they also have the authority to dictate the reverse.

Jerry

 

[ThesNazud]

I'm for national reciprocity, as I think it could be handled similar to how Driver's Licenses, and other licensing is concerned. Sure other states may have different rules and such, but they are honored from state to state. Simple question with a not so simple answer then is, 'If it has been done with those, why not with carry permits?'

 

[Webleymkv]

I'm for national reciprocity, as I think it could be handled similar to how Driver's Licenses, and other licensing is concerned. Sure other states may have different rules and such, but they are honored from state to state. Simple question with a not so simple answer then is, 'If it has been done with those, why not with carry permits?

There are, as I see it, a few problems with comparing Federally-mandated national CCW reciprocity with driver's licenses. First and foremost, reciprocity of driver's licenses was reached through agreements between the states. Allowing the feds to mandate CCW licenses would be letting the camel's nose into the tent and I fear that fed interference with specific state CCW regulations would follow.

Secondly, while there are some minor variations, the basic traffic laws, driver's license requirements, and rules of the road in all states are fairly uniform. Someone familiar with the traffic laws of one state can drive in any other state with a fairly low risk of violating traffic laws unintentionally. Likewise, just about every new car being sold is legal to drive in every state. CCW regulations, on the other hand, vary widely. There are wide variations from state-to-state regarding requirements for obtaining a license, what type of gun may be carried, what type of ammunition may be carried, what type of magazine may be carried, the manner in which the gun may be carried, when/where carry is legal, and how one must interact with a police officer when carrying. Someone from a state like Indiana, which has very loose CCW regulations, could easily break the law without even knowing that they're doing so by carrying a gun with a so-called "high capacity magazine", carrying hollowpoints, carrying openly, carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol, or failing to inform a police officer that they're carrying because, while all of these things are perfectly legal in Indiana, there are other states where they are not.