Brady Campaign hunkers down on the Chicago case

When is the last day for Orders & Opinions before the summer recess? Any guesses on who's writing McDonald? (I'm betting it's Thomas this time, unless Roberts takes it.)

New York is a reasonable target, but don't forget NC. We're shall-issue to carry but may-issue to purchase in the first place (unless you have a carry permit) and probably in a more gun-friendly circuit.

With Murdock v. Pennsylvania and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections as ammunition, I can’t see how fees of any kind will survive for licenses or permits to simply possess or purchase firearms. And with no fees being collected and budgets running short, the drive to save money might result in eliminating some (unreasonable) requirements.

"I suspect the New York law will be a good next target ("may issue" and $400 or whatever application fees are charged, for exercise of a fundamental constitutional right?)"

If you look at NYC's handgun licensing scheme, it's obvious that the exorbitant fees are the least of the burden on a constitutional right.

Last I checked, you had to appear in person at the office that controls the applications, where they will give you exactly 1 (one) application which has to be typewritten. If you actually get a pistol, you have to produce it within 24 hours (IIRC) at an office which is only open a couple of hours per day. The whole process is cleverly designed to keep handguns out of the hands of the loutish peasantry.

Some enterprising activist, with the appropriate resources, should do a survey of handgun licensees, and compile the results according to race/ethnicity. If a job-related civil service test can be deemed discriminatory, based on nothing more than group representation on the pass list, issuance of handgun licenses (which it is reasonable to suspect is heavily skewed toward wealthy white people) could be challenged on the same basis.

Or the elephant in the room: the NFA.

$200 transfer tax? $200 making tax?

And then, of course, there is good old 18 U.S.C. 922(o). The big enchilada, itself. Although it is not actually part of the NFA.

"Or the elephant in the room: the NFA.

$200 transfer tax? $200 making tax?

And then, of course, there is good old 18 U.S.C. 922(o). The big enchilada, itself. Although it is not actually part of the NFA."

The problem is that dicta in Heller about "dangerous and unusual" weapons probably rules out any challenge to 922(o) or the NFA as it pertains to machine guns, at least for the foreseeable future.

Of course, that is not to say I think the whole NFA is beyond reach. Calling short-barreled rifles dangerous [well, more dangerous than ordinary guns, that is] is really a big of a stretch. I think any attack on the NFA should really start by those, or the "Any Other Weapon" provision, which has the added bonus of being pretty terribly vague...

Well, the NFA discussion becomes circular real fast. All weapons are potential "dangerous," and as far as "unusual" goes, there would be a helluva lot more DDs, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, and MGs, were it not for the fact that they have been heavily taxed and regulated since 1934, and new transferable MGs banned since 1986. The other problem the feds have with respect to one firearm currently regulated as an AOW (pistols with two vertical grips) is that the DOJ has, as far as we are able to determine, lost every case that has gone to a published decision.