McDonald v Chicago ruling, and knife rights.

[goodeyesniper]

Not sure if any of you have been following this Supreme Court case, but it was just announced today. They struck down Chicago's handgun ban, and have now stated that the 2nd Amendment limits not only the Federal government, but also State and Local governments from implementing overly strict weapons laws.

Now, most people only lump firearms in with the 2nd Amendment, but I'm hopeful to see it affects much more. It will take time, and authoritarian holdouts like NYC might continue being overly strict for years, but I think in time we will see a softening of these types of laws.

We just need a few good cases. For instance, here in California we had 3 or 4 lawsuits against the state on hold until this decision. Now that we have incorporation, the lawsuits will go on, and there will probably be many more, but these are all focused on gun laws. If Knife Rights could get together with some big hitters like the Second Amendment Foundation, get some good plaintiffs going against the strictest violators, it would be a thing of beauty.

 

[Critter]

If Knife Rights could get together with some big hitters like the Second Amendment Foundation, get some good plaintiffs going against the strictest violators, it would be a thing of beauty.

While I cannot really comment too much on this, please note that the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been a staunch supporter of Knife Rights, that SAF and CCRKBA leader Alan Gottleib is one of our longtime advisers and that at last year's Gun Rights Policy Conference (sponsored by SAF and CCRKBA), Resolution 1 was changed to cover other arms besides guns and a new Resolution 6, was passed.

The "Farmer" resolution was originally passed at the first GRPC twenty four years ago. This year it was amended to say that "an attack on any class of arms is an attack on all classes of arms," in recognition that knives, as well as other arms, are due equal protection. This represents something of a watershed event for Second Amendment policy which heretofore has focused almost exclusively on firearms.

Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition was inspired to introduce a new resolution, which was adopted, that reads, "Whereas: The banning of any personal tool or weapon has never resulted in increased public safety,...We support the repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other federal, state or local laws and regulations banning tools and weapons rather than addressing behavior." Jeff's resolution is a strong statement of support for the concept that tools and weapons should not be blamed for social ills or criminal behavior and neither should they be regulated or banned for those reasons.

You can read the complete text of the two resolutions at:
http://www.kniferights.org/grpc2009resolutions.pdf

Finally, I should note that Alan Gura, who was the keynote speaker at our Sharper Future Awards Breakfast at Blade Show this month, is a member of Knife Rights' legal team...

Enough said on that matter.

If you have not yet done so, please become a Knife Rights member and please give generously to support this fight. This is YOUR fight, not your neighbors. You cannot wait for someone else to do it for you. We cannot afford to fail, but we cannot afford to fight without your support: www.KnifeRights.org

Follow Knife Rights on Twitter and receive the latest updates and notices as soon as they occur: http://twitter.com/KnifeRights

 

[goodeyesniper]

Thanks for the info! I had no idea Gura was involved with KnifeRights, too. Outstanding!

The future is looking a little exciting.

 

[TOM1960]

Not sure if any of you have been following this Supreme Court case, but it was just announced today. They struck down Chicago's handgun ban, and have now stated that the 2nd Amendment limits not only the Federal government, but also State and Local governments from implementing overly strict weapons laws.

Now, most people only lump firearms in with the 2nd Amendment, but I'm hopeful to see it affects much more. It will take time, and authoritarian holdouts like NYC might continue being overly strict for years, but I think in time we will see a softening of these types of laws.

We just need a few good cases. For instance, here in California we had 3 or 4 lawsuits against the state on hold until this decision. Now that we have incorporation, the lawsuits will go on, and there will probably be many more, but these are all focused on gun laws. If Knife Rights could get together with some big hitters like the Second Amendment Foundation, get some good plaintiffs going against the strictest violators, it would be a thing of beauty.

There are still two problems remaining. SCOTUS, as in the Heller case (Washington DC), once again confirmed a citizen's right to possess a handgun in his/her home. Concealed carry in public has not been established as a right by any SCOTUS decision to date. Problem #2: What are "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership? Chicago bureaucrats are already hinting about strict registration requirements, ballistic fingerprinting, microstamping and liability insurance for gun owners. I have never heard of an insurance company offering that type of insurance. Maybe Lloyds of London will write such a policy, assuming you have a bankroll the size of Mick Jagger's or Donald Trump's. Would such a requirement be "reasonable" if the average person doesn't have the financial resources to fulfill it?

 

[Watchful]

As good as the news was, a deeper reading shows the SCOTUS basically dodged all the really good questions, and even the winning side acknowledged there would be "extensive and costly litigation" to follow.

It's almost as if they answered the Constitutional question "they" were interested in, but skipped over the meat that 90% of Americans were interested.

Don't get me wrong: I'm obviously glad they upheld McDonald, but am rather disappointed by the unclear results that give "weapon censors" a lot of room to create other bans, restrictions, and whatever goofiness their imaginations allow.