[jsz0]

I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it probably raises doubts on age limitations too. Why can't a 10 year old buy a gun? The second amendment doesn't set any restrictions.

[russell_h]

It wont.

This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself.

In fact according to the article

Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...

(Edited for formatting)

[awzum]

Yea but the anti-gunners say that a whole lot of new cases will inundate our courts for the next 10 years...as if that's a bad thing. California passed AB 962 which bans ordering ammunition online, and requires a thumb print and ID when purchasing ammo in person. I hope that gets fought.

[hga]

Well, states and municipalities could decide to observe the Constitution and preemptively fix their laws; 4 Chicago suburbs with total handgun bans including the notorious leader Morton Grove were defendants in the original lawsuits and 3 gave up rather than fight.

And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).

[CWuestefeld]

Heller explicitly allows for such restrictions (without clarifying the boundaries), and this decision follows suit. It's still allowed by the court for State and Local ordinance to keep arms away from felons, the mentally ill, etc.

But I wonder what this will do to the overly-restrictive regulations of, e.g., NJ and CA. While NJ nominally provides for concealed-carry permits, in practice it's impossible to obtain one unless you're politically connected. Also, they routinely violate their own rules that guarantee that purchase permits be issued or denied within 30 days.

[hga]

The majority justices in both decisions have clearly states that they do not preclude regulations about commercial sales of firearms.

Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system.

"A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun."

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban) makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

WRT to all the above, most people who aren't part of the gun culture have no idea how highly regulated guns are in the US today.

WRT the Second Amendment's explicit restrictions, like the other parts of the Bill of Rights it doesn't get into the necessary details, and no one reasonable thinks ones like it are "absolute". E.g. you don't have right to shout fire in a theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). That's not set out in the First Amendment but no one has trouble with that restriction.

[CWuestefeld]

Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.

That's not exactly correct:

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]

Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...

[hga]

Given that restraining orders are handed out like candy and have been used to strip future victims of self-protection, it indeed ought to be vulnerable now. We'll see; that and the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg really need revision, since the prior regimes for both didn't take into consideration that a restraining order or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would strip someone of a fundamental right.