 |
| Right to Carry is a Good Indicator Of A State's Position On The 2nd Amendment - Yellow States Are Anti-Gun Rights (Note: IL is very anti-gun - but was forced to adopt shall issue concealed carry by federal courts). |
1) States With Strict Gun Laws Are Choosing Not To Appeal Pro-Gun Rights Rulings
When state and local governments lose gun rights cases at the appeals court level, they are choosing not to appeal to the Supreme Court. The reason is simple: Gun control advocates have learned the hard way that a loss at SCOTUS sets a national precedent. As a result, the last time a state or local government appealed an appellate court loss to SCOTUS was 2009.
The result of this choice not to appeal is that the appellate court ruling establishes or denies a right within that appellate court's district.
In my former state of California, there is no right to carry, all firearms are registered at the time of sale, a 10 round magazine limit is enforced, all firearms must be transported unloaded and in locked containers, and every year lawmakers pass more and more restrictions designed to make owning a firearm as legally risky as possible. There is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.
One day's drive away in my new home state of Idaho, CCW permits are issued on a shall issue basis, no permit is required for state residents to carry, CCW permits from any and all states are recognized, there are no restrictions on semi-auto rifles or magazine capacity and there are no restrictions other than those contained in federal law.
The Idaho Constitution contains the following provision: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Furthermore, in my state, and in many others, the 2nd Amendment is in no way a 2nd class right. Instead, it is seen as the right that protects all the others. The public simply will not tolerate any of the measures now in effect in California.
4) States Likely Can Effectively Opt Out Of Federal Gun and Magazine Bans
Should gun control advocates succeed in passing more federal restrictions pro-gun rights states are not simply going to accept them. The most effective way that this can be done is by the state simply designating all persons legally permitted to own firearms as members of the state's "reserve militia" - and then authorizing said persons to purchase and possess the newly banned rifles and magazines. Note that the state militia is not the National Guard. States may have militias completely separate from the federal armed forces.
5) How This Could Change
The most likely way that this could change would be if the makeup of the Supreme Court were to be changed. Thankfully, this is quite likely. Currently, there are two rock solid 2nd Amendment votes (Justices Thomas and Gorsuch) and three justices with a "high" view of the 2nd Amendment - meaning that they are likely to uphold the court's precedents as set forth in Heller and McDonald (Justices Alito, Roberts, Kennedy). There are four anti-2nd Amendment votes: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan (Kagan could be a wildcard since she is known to have become both a hunter and gun owner since being elevated to the high court). It is likely that President Trump will be able to replace up to three Justices (Breyer - aged 79, Ginsburg - aged 84 and Kennedy - aged 81) in his first term. Should he be reelected, the replacement of these three Justices becomes a virtual certainty. Should Trump - who has promised to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices - replace all three of these justices, the court would have a solid pro-gun rights majority. This would likely result in the court taking more gun rights cases, and likely ruling in favor of gun rights.
A less likely was for this to change would be action by the federal Congress. Legislation could require all states to issue carry permits to anyone passing background check and training requirements. Congress could also "preempt" entire areas of firearms law and/or forbid states from enforcing laws more restrictive than federal law. Given that a supposed pro-gun rights Congress has not been able to even pass CCW reciprocity, this is a long shot at best.
The result of this choice not to appeal is that the appellate court ruling establishes or denies a right within that appellate court's district.
2) The Supreme Court Is Passing On Gun Rights Cases Where Applying Principles From Prior Rulings Favor Gun Rights
There are three issues that SCOTUS has not yet decided, and in some cases where appeals courts have split: The right to carry, semi-auto rifle bans and magazine limits. Sadly, again and again, when pro-gun rights groups have appealed to the high court, SCOTUS has chosen not to hear the case. This has resulted in, for instance, there being a right to carry in some states and no right to carry in others.
3) Rights Under State Laws Vary Greatly
3) Rights Under State Laws Vary Greatly
In my former state of California, there is no right to carry, all firearms are registered at the time of sale, a 10 round magazine limit is enforced, all firearms must be transported unloaded and in locked containers, and every year lawmakers pass more and more restrictions designed to make owning a firearm as legally risky as possible. There is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.One day's drive away in my new home state of Idaho, CCW permits are issued on a shall issue basis, no permit is required for state residents to carry, CCW permits from any and all states are recognized, there are no restrictions on semi-auto rifles or magazine capacity and there are no restrictions other than those contained in federal law.
The Idaho Constitution contains the following provision: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Furthermore, in my state, and in many others, the 2nd Amendment is in no way a 2nd class right. Instead, it is seen as the right that protects all the others. The public simply will not tolerate any of the measures now in effect in California.
4) States Likely Can Effectively Opt Out Of Federal Gun and Magazine Bans
Should gun control advocates succeed in passing more federal restrictions pro-gun rights states are not simply going to accept them. The most effective way that this can be done is by the state simply designating all persons legally permitted to own firearms as members of the state's "reserve militia" - and then authorizing said persons to purchase and possess the newly banned rifles and magazines. Note that the state militia is not the National Guard. States may have militias completely separate from the federal armed forces.
5) How This Could Change
The most likely way that this could change would be if the makeup of the Supreme Court were to be changed. Thankfully, this is quite likely. Currently, there are two rock solid 2nd Amendment votes (Justices Thomas and Gorsuch) and three justices with a "high" view of the 2nd Amendment - meaning that they are likely to uphold the court's precedents as set forth in Heller and McDonald (Justices Alito, Roberts, Kennedy). There are four anti-2nd Amendment votes: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan (Kagan could be a wildcard since she is known to have become both a hunter and gun owner since being elevated to the high court). It is likely that President Trump will be able to replace up to three Justices (Breyer - aged 79, Ginsburg - aged 84 and Kennedy - aged 81) in his first term. Should he be reelected, the replacement of these three Justices becomes a virtual certainty. Should Trump - who has promised to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices - replace all three of these justices, the court would have a solid pro-gun rights majority. This would likely result in the court taking more gun rights cases, and likely ruling in favor of gun rights.
A less likely was for this to change would be action by the federal Congress. Legislation could require all states to issue carry permits to anyone passing background check and training requirements. Congress could also "preempt" entire areas of firearms law and/or forbid states from enforcing laws more restrictive than federal law. Given that a supposed pro-gun rights Congress has not been able to even pass CCW reciprocity, this is a long shot at best.
6) The future if this does not change
What will happen if these regional differences continue? Well, the division within the country will continue to grow. Even more significant, more and more people will flee "blue" states with repressive gun control laws. Already, it is common for states outside the West Coast and Northeast to be described as "free states". California may very well vote to leave the US - but in my opinion, they have already become another country - complete with rigged elections, one party rule, and a total disregard for many constitutional rights. Although gun rights are not the only issue that divides these states, it is a huge factor. Consider this: People are now actively fleeing many states because they fear that government in these states are rapidly becoming totalitarian. What does this say about our future? What will happen if this division continues?
In my opinion, should this happen, should the stark division between states continue, the US cannot continue as one nation. The issue goes far, far beyond gun rights. Hopefully, any split will be handled peacefully. My greatest fear is a second civil war..... and I see the chances that we will experience one growing every day.
In my opinion, should this happen, should the stark division between states continue, the US cannot continue as one nation. The issue goes far, far beyond gun rights. Hopefully, any split will be handled peacefully. My greatest fear is a second civil war..... and I see the chances that we will experience one growing every day.
No comments:
Post a Comment