Supreme Court taking on Chicago Gun laws: MERGED

NYcarry · September 30th, 2009, 11:24 AM

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.

Blackeagle · September 30th, 2009, 11:28 AM

A bit more info from SCOTUSBLOG:

Quote:

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

Janq · September 30th, 2009, 11:56 AM

- Janq

ccw9mm · September 30th, 2009, 12:10 PM

Supreme Court to Debate Local, State Handgun Laws

It's scheduled to be debated in 2010.

Quote:

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.

njeske · September 30th, 2009, 12:11 PM

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.

Cericko · September 30th, 2009, 12:16 PM

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.

Blackeagle · September 30th, 2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njeske

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.

Frogbones · September 30th, 2009, 12:49 PM

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

DaveH · September 30th, 2009, 01:51 PM

Come on Alan Gura. Do it again. Win another one for the team.

DaveH · September 30th, 2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogbones

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.

September 30th, 2009, 11:24 AM	#1
NYcarry Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Upstate Posts: 505	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. __________________

September 30th, 2009, 11:56 AM	#3
Janq VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,525	- Janq __________________ "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post

September 30th, 2009, 12:11 PM	#5
njeske Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Reno, NV Posts: 327	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. __________________ Nevada Gun Owners Forum

September 30th, 2009, 12:16 PM	#6
Cericko Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Roswell, GA Posts: 30	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. __________________ "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 Last edited by Cericko; September 30th, 2009 at 12:17 PM.. Reason: addition

September 30th, 2009, 12:49 PM	#8
Frogbones Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Up in Texas Posts: 447	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 __________________ Progress, not perfection. triple tap "think triangle - nipple to nipple to Adam's apple. The hope is that at least two of the three will make serious contact with a major organ or the spine." http://theshootersclub.com/

September 30th, 2009, 01:51 PM	#9
DaveH VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: SW Virginia Posts: 2,388	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 BTW -- I am neither a lawyer, nor I do not play one on television or on the Internet. I hope no one assumes that I am giving legal advice Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode