Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED

Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED

This is a discussion on Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Not much info at all posted here Supreme Court to review state gun laws – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs September 30th, 2009 Supreme ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array NYcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    517

    Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED

    Not much info at all posted here

    Supreme Court to review state gun laws – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs

    September 30th, 2009
    Supreme Court to review state gun laws
    Posted: 10:04 AM ET

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Supreme Court accepted Wednesday appeal over constitutionality of handgun restrictions in Chicago.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    A bit more info from SCOTUSBLOG:

    Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law
    Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston |
    Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.

    The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.
    Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law | SCOTUSblog

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781


    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,434

    Exclamation SCOTUS -- 2010 debate 2A incorporation, applicability to states

    Supreme Court to Debate Local, State Handgun Laws

    It's scheduled to be debated in 2010.

    Supreme Court To Debate Local, State Handgun Laws

    by The Associated Press
    September 30, 2009

    The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

    The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

    The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

    Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

    "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

    Evaluating arguments over the extension of the Second Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.

    The high court took his suggestion Wednesday.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, was part of a three-judge panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January.

    Judges on both courts - Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York - said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.

    The New York ruling also has been challenged, but the court did not act on it Wednesday. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court. Although the issue is the same in the Chicago case, there is no ethical bar to her participation in its consideration by the Supreme Court.

    Several Republican senators cited the Sotomayor gun ruling, as well as her reticence on the topic at her confirmation hearing, in explaining their decision to oppose her confirmation to the high court.

    The case will be argued next year.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #5
    Member Array njeske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    359
    Given that the court is still 5-4 with relatively conservative judges, I see this on coming down on our side. But just barely, like the Heller ruling.

  6. #6
    Member Array Cericko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    44

    McDonald vs. Chicago

    Anyone up on this case that is going before the Supreme Court?

    Supreme Court takes gun case that will test reach of 2nd Amendment -- latimes.com


    ...apologies to administrator for not placing this thread in the proper area.
    Last edited by Cericko; September 30th, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason: addition
    "A strong body makes a mind strong. As to the exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
    --Thomas Jefferson August 1785

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by njeske View Post
    Given that the court is still 5-4 with relatively conservative judges, I see this on coming down on our side. But just barely, like the Heller ruling.
    I think we may well see much more support for incorporation, perhaps even unanimous. Liberal justices tend to like incorporation generally, and some or all of them may support it on that basis, rather than because of any love for the RKBA.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Hmmm....While I don't agree with any ban of any type of firearm.

    Devil's advocate:

    I have to say this. How is this unconstitutional? "Right to keep and bare arms"...right? Not "right to keep and bare handguns, or gun of my choosing". They DO allow you to keep "arms" in the house...mostly some of the best types of HD firearms they do allow you to keep/have.

    Nowhere in the 2A does it specify what type of arms you are allowed to keep, or not have. Just as long as it's an arm..... Sword, Mace, fallange, throwing stars, etc.etc....firearm of some sort, heck it could be all we could legally have is .22 rifles...it is an arm, no?

    Just doesn't seem much of a case to me since McDonald can have a firearm in his house...just not a handgun.

    I do support this case; any case that gives more leeway/freedom of lega firearm ownership...just this doesn't seem to hold much to me.

    He wants a handgun...ok but you can't. But you can have a rifle and or a SHOTGUN..heck I'd rather have those than a handgun for HD/SD.

    Help enlighten me please. I just don't think this will work.

    Though I do favor McDonald in this case...just have to be cleared of my current skepticism

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Come on Alan Gura. Do it again. Win another one for the team.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Frogbones View Post
    Hmmm....While I don't agree with any ban of any type of firearm.

    ...

    I have to say this. How is this unconstitutional? "Right to keep and bare arms"...right? Not "right to keep and bare handguns, or gun of my choosing". They DO allow you to keep "arms" in the house...mostly some of the best types of HD firearms they do allow you to keep/have.

    ....
    It doesn't say "some arms" or "appropriate arms" or "approved arms" or licensed arms" or "registered arms" or "what someone thinks are best types of HD firearms " or etc.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    A chance for Sotomayor to show us what a piece of crap she really is.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    It doesn't say "some arms" or "appropriate arms" or "approved arms" or licensed arms" or "registered arms" or "what someone thinks are best types of HD firearms " or etc.
    The argument for limiting the type of arms stems from a historic view of how the word "arms" would have been understood during the post Revolutionary War period. The argument would be that "arms" during that period meant in general the arms typically owned/used by individual citizens for self-protection, hunting and when banned together with other private citizens arms that could put down an attack by invading Indians, and could also serve as a deterent to a tyrannical government with a standing army/navy.

    The latter would not have been necessarily understood as meaning arms that matched anything owned by a standing army or navy.

    I am not a lawyer and have never played a lawyer on TV :).
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    Good Luck, Chicagoans.....
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  14. #14
    Member Array ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    190
    Am I the only one worried about the outcome of this case? I get the feeling that many think it's a clear win for supporters of 2A rights but I wish I could be as certain. I can imagine what a mess we'd have nationwide if SCOTUS rules for Chicago. We could end up with a mess of local regulations/laws that vary widely. Note that not only gun possession could be affected as in Chicago's ban. Chicago has also put all gun shops and ranges in Chicago out of business. It also has a history of harassing shops in neighboring communities, but doesn't always succeed in driving them out of business. Some shops won't sell to residents of Chicago, some make them sign forms acknowledging Chicago's ban before completing a sale, etc. There is one gun shop that is directly on the street that forms one of Chicago's boundaries. So you could go in the shop, make a purchase of a firearm or ammunition, cross the street to get to your car, and then be arrested on a felony firearms charge. Would we end up with such a ridiculous situation nationwide? I sure hope not but i am worried.

  15. #15
    Member Array sigpack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Western Ky.
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by ming View Post
    Am I the only one worried about the outcome of this case? I get the feeling that many think it's a clear win for supporters of 2A rights but I wish I could be as certain. I can imagine what a mess we'd have nationwide if SCOTUS rules for Chicago. We could end up with a mess of local regulations/laws that vary widely. Note that not only gun possession could be affected as in Chicago's ban. Chicago has also put all gun shops and ranges in Chicago out of business. It also has a history of harassing shops in neighboring communities, but doesn't always succeed in driving them out of business. Some shops won't sell to residents of Chicago, some make them sign forms acknowledging Chicago's ban before completing a sale, etc. There is one gun shop that is directly on the street that forms one of Chicago's boundaries. So you could go in the shop, make a purchase of a firearm or ammunition, cross the street to get to your car, and then be arrested on a felony firearms charge. Would we end up with such a ridiculous situation nationwide? I sure hope not but i am worried.
    That is where state preemption laws come in. Of course if you live in a state like Illinois or New York you are sol.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court shoots down Chicago!
    By jsunsr in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:51 PM
  2. CNN gun poll - Supreme Court on Chicago handgun ban
    By mlkx4 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 12:57 PM
  3. McDondald v. Chicago Petitioner Supreme Court Brief
    By Jetpilot007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 26th, 2010, 08:07 PM
  4. Supreme Court schedules argument in Chicago gun case
    By Blackeagle in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2009, 09:18 PM
  5. US Supreme Court Over Rules Bush and The World Court (Merged)
    By Sig 210 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 09:56 PM

Search tags for this page

mcdonald vs chicago

,
overthrowing presumptively legal laws
,
supreme court rule martial arts throwing stars are arms
Click on a term to search for related topics.