7 replies to this topic

[Federal Farmer]

Another domino falls!

From Volokh.com

This is a US District Court win, so isn't binding.

This is Gura's suit against a North Carolina ban on transporting firearms during a state of emergency.

[Federal Farmer]

The big quotes in this decision:

Quote

The ruling is significant in several ways. First, it recognizes that the right to arms is not limited to in-home possession. "Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home." Second it recognizes that when the core right -- possession in the home -- is involved, strict scrutiny applies. Third, it applies strict scrutiny here because of the statute's breadth and the fact that it indirectly impacts possession in the home.

The first quote should be scary to Carry banners.

That second and third should be scary to Chicago and Cook County with respect to AWBs.

[NakPPI]

All I have to say is "wow"


Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

[GarandFan]

Fantastic!  Congrats SAF and Alan Gura!

Any indication whether NC will appeal?  I would kind of suspect not.

[Davey]

Federal Farmer, on 29 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

The big quotes in this decision:

Quote

The ruling is significant in several ways. First, it recognizes that the right to arms is not limited to in-home possession. "Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home." Second it recognizes that when the core right -- possession in the home -- is involved, strict scrutiny applies. Third, it applies strict scrutiny here because of the statute's breadth and the fact that it indirectly impacts possession in the home.

The first quote should be scary to Carry banners.

That second and third should be scary to Chicago and Cook County with respect to AWBs.

They'll just say "he said possession, not bare".

[GarandFan]

[quote name='Davey' date='29 March 2012 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1333062826' post='320001
They'll just say "he said possession, not bare".
[/quote]

When they are demonstrably incorrect, who cares what they will say.

"Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home."

The subject of the sentence is the right to keep and bear arms.  "It" (the subject of the sentence) is not limited to the confines of the home.  He could not have been more clear.

[dmefford]

I would say that the most important thing that I read in this case is with regard to a complete ban on the possession, transportation of weapons outside the home and also the ban of the purchase of ammunition during a so called emergency....

This is powerful... In Illinois we also have a complete ban on the "public" carry of a defensive weapon, especially a firearm. This burdens a fundamental right... Illinois laws are definitely NOT narrowly tailored at criminals or defective people but at the law abiding as well... Here is what I think are some of the choice morsels are in this case....... Enjoy, Drd

In Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment includes “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’ thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 467 (4^th Cir. 2011) . . . . .

. . .

While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment. As such, these laws, much like those involved in Heller, are at the “far end of the spectrum of infringement on protected Second Amendment rights.” Marzzarella, 614 F. 3d at 97.

That being the case, the emergency declarations are presumed invalid, and defendants bear the burden of rebutting that presumption by showing that the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. This, the defendants have failed to do.

. . .

The problem here is that the emergency declaration statutes, are not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest in public safety. They do not target dangerous individuals or dangerous conduct. Nor do they seek to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions by, for example, imposing a curfew to allow the exercise of Second Amendment rights during circumscribed times. Rather, the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“[A]mericans understood the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘ the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.’” (quoting 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803)) . . . Consequently, the emergency declaration laws are invalid as applied to plaintiff.

[FAL]

I think that, in addition to the above very important points that each person makes, what's important about this case is that the judge used 'strict scrutiny'. If this becomes a pattern where strict scrutiny is applied to firearms laws across the country, a lot of these laws won't pass the test and will fall.

This is a huge win.


“…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”