Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
967 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Come on Alan Gura. Do it again. Win another one for the team.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
A chance for Sotomayor to show us what a piece of crap she really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
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 :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Good Luck, Chicagoans.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
A chance for Sotomayor to show us what a piece of crap she really is.
Actually, I don't think Sotomayor will be able to vote on this will she? From the yahoo.com news article:

"Evaluating arguments over the extension of the Second Amendment is a job 'for the justices rather than a court of appeals,' Easterbrook said. 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. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
In practical terms Heller was a baby step in the right direction, recognizing that a wholesale ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional. It still leaves in place the ability of state and local governments to create "reasonable restrictions" on the what, where, when and how. This also leaves private citizens behind the eightball since the government, with the backing of taxpayer dollars, can create restrictions that violate the spirit of Heller leaving citizens bearing the cost of taking the government to court to try and correct the situation.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of 2nd amendment incorporation the states and local governments can still throw up roadblock requiring continued court battles to define/redefine "reasonable restrictions". It might also open the door for a federal concealed carry law (defining for everyone what constitutes reasonable restrictions) which if put in place could be a bonus for citizens in places like NY and NJ but ends up placing additional restricts in places like FL and UT.

Any new federal firearms legislation such be thoroughly examined to insure that it doesn't on the one hand acknowledge the 2nd amendment rights of citizens in NY while at the same time creating the potential for stifling the rights of citizens in FL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
Actually, I don't think Sotomayor will be able to vote on this will she?
Probably yes. Sotomayor was involved in 08-1592 Maloney v Rice; that is the only guaranteed recusal. She could rule in 08-1497 NRA v Chicago or 08-1521 McDonald v Chicago (the one selected yesterday).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
Heller was a fairly simple and easy win for 2A. This State/Federal authority stuff is messy.

SCOTUS cannot simply say 2A preempts all State and local firearms law. Doing so would void 200 years worth of State law. It would be good if the Slaughterhouse Cases were made defunct. They really obscure things in a messy way.

The justices should not be arguing about what is "reasonable". Note the wording of the various amendments in the Bill of Rights. For example: 4A "unreasonable searches and seizures" while 2A "shall not be infringed" That wording is much more powerful.

I fear this is a battle that cannot be won.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
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
Nor is there an exclusion of ANY type of arms.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top