High court to look at local gun control laws

[lukem]

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.

Read more: High court to look at local gun control laws - Yahoo! News

[joespahr]

I've been watching this develop since the Heller decision. I am cautiously hopeful going forward because it seems to me that this is the very thing that Scalia was almost begging for when he said that the scope of the Second Amendment would be something that the court would have to determine later. Instead of issuing a sweeping opinion that the left would decry as judicial activism (irony, no?) he kept his opinion limited to the scope of the case in front of him while at the same time practically begging for a case with wider scope. Now I can only pray that at a minimum the same five justices (I'm sure of four, it's just Kennedy that worries me) can take this to its logical conclusion. (Ideally, I'd prefer to see a unanimous upholding of the incorporation of the Second Amendment, but I know I will never live to see that.)

[tattedupboy]

Since the same five justices who voted to uphold Heller are still sitting on the court, I believe that it will be another 5-4 majority to overturn local gun bans (the five being Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor dissenting.

[BamaBoy]

This could be the most important decision of any kind in more than a century, possibly ever as far as I'm concerned. From the New York Times:

Most legal scholars expect the court to apply the Second Amendment to the states. But many of them are urging the court to take an unusual route to that result. Rather than continuing to rely on the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, the court should, these scholars say, look to the amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Apparently some liberal lawyers are encouraging the court to incorporate the Second Amendment under the privileges and immunities clause. Doing so would support an argument toward requiring every state to recognize every marriage from every other state.

I agree that it will probably be another 5-4 decision, but there's always the chance that one or more of the dissenters in Heller will be honest and say, "Well, now that it has been decided that the Second Amendment confirms an individual right, state laws that violate such a right are unconstitutional." (I can dream, can't I?)

[surfcc]

I saw this on the news at 5AM this morning. Keeping my fingers crossed that it goes our way!

[Scarecrow]

that would be great to actually see people other than gangsters with guns in chicago...

[FN1910]

I've been watching this develop since the Heller decision. I am cautiously hopeful going forward because it seems to me that this is the very thing that Scalia was almost begging for when he said that the scope of the Second Amendment would be something that the court would have to determine later. Instead of issuing a sweeping opinion that the left would decry as judicial activism (irony, no?) he kept his opinion limited to the scope of the case in front of him while at the same time practically begging for a case with wider scope. Now I can only pray that at a minimum the same five justices (I'm sure of four, it's just Kennedy that worries me) can take this to its logical conclusion. (Ideally, I'd prefer to see a unanimous upholding of the incorporation of the Second Amendment, but I know I will never live to see that.)

I totally agree with that he only looked at the case in front of him and I applaud him for that as much as I would have liked for it ti be expanded. One of the problmes we have with rulings, laws and opinions is that you ask a question and get 14 different answers but none actually replying to the question. His comments did appear to beg for a new case with wider ruling. I don't know how this will turn out but I think it will be in our favor.

This reminds me of the age old question about "I have narrowed my choices down to a Glock 19 or XD9C. Which should I get." Usually the first poster answers Get a Sig .40.

[BamaBoy]

Since the Ninth Circuit is reconsidering its case en banc, we don't really have conflicting appeals court opinions (yet). Therefore, we have to ask, Why would the court take this case unless it intends to overturn the decision?

I too am keeping my fingers crossed, but it's hard to believe that the five justices would not apply their Heller decision to the states.

Remember that Heller actually upheld a 2-1 appeals court decision in which the dissenter claimed that Heller's rights were not violated precisely because the Second Amendment applied to the states and not the District of Columbia.