Tester leads charge for gun rights in another Supreme Court case

[UnklFungus]

U.S. Senator Jon Tester

Senator urges Court to side with gun rights in McDonald v. Chicago

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Senator Jon Tester is again leading the charge in Congress to ensure that all law-abiding Americans have the same rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Tester today teamed up with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to support gun rights in its upcoming McDonald v. The City of Chicago case.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to make a decision in McDonald v. Chicago. Justices will determine whether state and local governments have the right to pass their own laws restricting firearms.

Tester and Hutchison are writing a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of gun rights.

“The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live,” said Tester, who serves as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “I’m glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case.”

McDonald v. Chicago is similar to another Supreme Court case that Tester and Hutchison became involved with. Last year, they wrote a brief asking the Court to strike down Washington, D.C.’s longstanding ban on firearms in the Heller v. The District of Columbia case.

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court agreed Washington D.C.’s controversial ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment and struck it down on June 28, 2008.

The McDonald case is broader than the Heller case because it will apply to gun rights in all state and city governments—not just the federal government (The city of Washington, D.C., is part of the federal government).

Senator Max Baucus plans to join Tester in signing the brief for the Supreme Court.

“Our state’s identity is firmly rooted in our outdoor heritage,” Baucus said. “The Second Amendment is a vital part of our history, our heritage and our future. On behalf of every Montanan, I’m encouraging the Supreme Court to protect this inalienable right for all Montanans and for law-abiding citizens across the country.”

“This case isn’t about politics or parties,” Tester said. “It’s about our Constitution. We were on the right side of the Constitution when the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s gun ban, and we’re on the right side in McDonald v. Chicago.”

Earlier this year, Tester and Baucus successfully told the U.S. Attorney General to back down from any plans to ban assault weapons. They also got the Pentagon to reverse a controversial decision to not sell used brass casings for ammunition. And they supported a successful law allowing firearms in national parks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[automatic slim]

I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?

[nutz4utwo]

I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?

It is the dumb "selective incorporation" doctrine started in the The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SCOTUS basically said the 14th amendment that was recently passed does nothing.

[socal2310]

It is the dumb "selective incorporation" doctrine started in the The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SCOTUS basically said the 14th amendment that was recently passed does nothing.

Which is why we may well end up with more than five votes in favor of full Incorporation. The Slaughter-house cases were a blatant attempt to retain the precedent set by the Dred Scott decision against a constitutional amendment that was worded specifically to void it.

I can't wait to see the look on the faces of Chicago city attorneys when that particular issue is brought up.

Ryan

[tangoseal]

I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land. If a city or state attempted to muzzle the New York Times for example, they would immediately point to the first amendment as their right to speak freely. It too is a federal law, but no one says we have to go to SCOTUS to affirm our right to speak freely in each individual state and city. Why is this the case for the second amendment?
Using current logic, Roe v. Wade should only apply to Dallas, the Miranda decision only to Arizona at the most. What gives?

Well said!

Too bad we know the answer. Cuz guns kill ppl and ppl are incapable of violence if guns were obliterated from our constitution.

Some one lend me a time machine so I can go back and have a very long conversation with the Framers.

[retsupt99]

I am hoping that the SCOTUS sends a message back to Chicago that involves a jar of vasoline...

[Random]

I just can't make sense out of our current government. Supposedly the Constitution is the law of the land.

The problem is that the Constitution has been pretty much ignored for quite some time now, by both major parties and all all levels of government.

[zacii]

This could be win-win for gun rights. If they rule against Chicago, then 2A applies to all states, counties, cities across the nation. If they rule for Chicago, then state and local entities can make their own laws on this matter, thus validating Montanta's recent gun laws. IANAL, so I'm guessing that they'll rule against Chicago, because that throws the balance of power to the Federal Gov't instead of the states and that's a bigger issue than guns, in their minds. Of course my statements are uneducated speculation.