I like this tact, hopefully it will work, and then we could remove more un-just laws like this.

I love it! Especially in light of the recent ruling on SB1070.

The grandaddy of all preemption arguments is a militia-law case from 1820. In that case SCOTUS held the states could enforce the federal law, but the state law itself was preempted.

The decision (Houston v. Moore) was cited as recently as 1990 for a similar proposition, that the state courts could enforce federal law -- which is what Arizona was doing.

My argument, which the J. Stevens and the dissenters tried to dodge in a footnote, is that the states lack a reserved power to designate citizens as militia. Congress can always preempt a state militia law, because the militia powers were delegated specifically in order to have a uniform plan of national defense. So contrary to the Collectivist theory, the states can never bring citizens under the protection of the 2nd Am by way of state law.

So how does this work? I can see that new laws are low-hanging fruit, but there are many ill-founded decisions that should be subject to rehearing.

Kasler v. Lockyer (in re the California Assault Weapons Ban) rested on the principle that the 2nd didn't apply to California because the 2nd hadn't been incorporated and therefore RKBA was subject to the "rational basis" test.

Does Heller/McDonald provide enough to vacate the decision? What more is needed? Does the fear of a negative decision outweigh the obvious advantages in the minds of conservative thinking NRA lawyers?

Folks...

There are now THREE lawsuits attacking AB962:
- the Calguns Foundation one described here;
- the CRPA Foundation/NRA-ILA suit in state court
- State Ammunition v. Lindley (by Chaffin Law firm)

Something's gotta give ;)

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

The handgun ammunition shipping ban can be tossed based on pre-emption. 2A arguments are the backup strategy here.

-Gene