I really should have had an essay ready for this but I've been so busy.
I'm traveling this week, but I can assure you that I'm as enthusiastic about this event as anyone. One of my buddies from work who tends toward the poetic sent me a note that simply read:
Hope returns in spite of Barak.
I thinkn that says it all.
6 comments:
What will this mean for us in NJ? Will somebody have to sue to get the now unconstitutional laws removed?
It's an interesting legal question. My take on it is this:
Things like the NJ AWB is probably big trouble eventually. But a bigger issue is the NJ treatment of handguns.
For instance, the NJ concealed carry ban for private citizens isn't actually a law. Instead of having a ban like chicago did (which can be deemed unconsitutional) the NJ ban is a procedural ban where they simply never approve the issueance of a permit to anyone but a policeman.
In that way it's like NYC's treatment of handguns. If you're one of 'the right people' you can have one... it's just that in NJ the only people who are 'the right people' are policement or those with exceptional political connections. Private citizens can apply all they like but will never see it.
For that reason, I don't see this ruling having any major effect on that. In NJ when the law limits government, the government simply ignore it. And that's what I expect to continue.
But at least this ruling is a good start.
But even without affecting the CCW non-ban ban, I could see the recently passed one handgun a month law being ruled unconstitutional.
I think a bigger question will be the what parts of the entire process of geting a handgun (or a long gun) will go away?
Like you, I'm not holding my breath, but all it will take is one lawsuit from an aggreived family member of a victim of a break in who couldn't get a hand gun for personal protection because of "unduly restrictive" laws.
Much like the previous Heller decision, this one is actually pretty modest in what it requires of states and cities. They can't have an outright ban on handguns anymore, but otherwise they get a lot of leeway.
My guess is the court's conservatives couldn't go as far as they wanted to without losing Kennedy's support.
To really fix this mess through the courts will require a stronger majority of conservatives on SCOTUS. So that will be an extremely slow process.
On a tangential topic, Tom, I'm wondering what you thought of the controversy among NRA members over the NRA's position on DISCLOSE. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html
I get that the NRA is a one issue organization. I wish they would remember who their friends are, but the fact is, they've been VERY successful under Chris Cox. And if he thinks it's the best way to go for the sake of their one issue organization, then I'm reluctant to criticize him for it.
I know that sounds a little weasely so let me say it this way, I'm dissapointed in their actions but because I have confidence in their leadership I understand and accept them.
That's more or less the conclusion I've come to after reading Keene's response: http://www.nraila.org/keeneresponse/
Disappointed would be an understatement for my reaction until I read that though. It was closer to Red State's: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
I wonder if they really thought through how bad it would look to a lot of their own members. They seemed unprepared for the backlash in the initial days.
Post a Comment