Supreme Court Takes up Landmark Gun Case

[Tea For One]

Interesting article on World Net Daily. This was discussed on Glenn Beck's program yesterday afternoon.

TFO





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Supreme Court takes up landmark gun case
Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of state, local firearm bans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 30, 2009
3:45 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




The Supreme Court has agreed today to hear a landmark Second Amendment case challenging Chicago's ban on handguns and onerous registration procedures on other firearms.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago claiming the city enforces a handgun ban identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller and that the ban violates residents' Second Amendment rights.

In Heller, the court rejected a lower court position that claimed the Second Amendment applied only to state "militia," such as the National Guard. However, the 5-4 ruling referenced the federal jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and not states and localities.

This case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenges a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities like Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Story continues below)




The plaintiffs argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities.

According to USA Today, 34 states asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and a separate one filed by the National Rifle Association against Chicago.

The report states that 33 of the 34 states said in a joint filing, "Without this court's review (of the Chicago cases), millions of Americans may be deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." California asked the court to hear the Chicago cases in a separate filing.

Chicago officials told the Supreme Court the city's 1982 handgun ban was put in place to address an increase in gun-related deaths and because guns are believed to play "a major role in the commission of homicide, aggravated assaults and armed robbery."

Following the Heller decision, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley called the Supreme Court ruling "a very frightening decision," according to Chicago's WLS-TV.

"It's amazing how the Supreme Court and Congress, you can't carry a gun into the Supreme Court," he said during a June 2008 event at Navy Pier. "You can't carry a gun in and around the capitol building. You can't get into the capitol building without being searched. And so why should our streets of our American cities be open to someone carrying a gun?"

The Supreme Court is expected to hear McDonald v. Chicago in January. Some say a ruling by next summer may result in numerous lawsuits challenging gun measures in cities and states across the nation.

As WND reported, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled earlier this year that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The 9th Circuit is the largest federal circuit court and is considered to be the most liberal.

"The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Angl-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited," the 9th Circuit court opinion stated. "We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."

The decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He's advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

[FN1910]

I believe that the Chicago Ban will be struck dow much like the DC ban. However I am afraid that just as with the DC ban it is going to still be a long road. I have often said that reasonable gun laws are necessary but no one can agree or decide what are reasonable laws. I break the carrying of guns down into three areas.

Private Property - It does no matter if it is your home, farm, ranch, business or whatever in this category you should be able to carry handgun or long gun any way you want to. If you want to keep a shotgun in your house you should not have to get a permit for it or be foreced t have any training etc. Just buy the gun at the sore and carry it home.

Sensitive Areas - I am not sure that I agree with being able to carry your gun with you while visiting your brother in jail or the asylum. There are some places that I think it is prudent to leave your guns outside. I am not going to try and come up with any list of places but there are some that should be on the banned list but the Post Office isn't on my list.

General Public - Once you step off of your property into the public area such as walking down main street or shopping at Wal-Mart your rights all of a sudden end wheere other peoples rights begin. I am not saying that a ban on guns in Wal-Mart should be a law but you are now on someone elses property and your rights and privleges are not the same as when sitting in your den watching Lock and Load. This is where the reasonable restriction argument comes in.

Reasonable restrictions don't apply to your private property unless you want to outlaw nukes and I am not sure that isn't a violation of 2A, but I can live with it. Once you step out in public then things change.

[JJFlash]

Am I reading this right? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals came down strongly in favor of 2nd Amendment rights?!! Will wonders never cease...

[Tea For One]

Am I reading this right? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals came down strongly in favor of 2nd Amendment rights?!! Will wonders never cease...

Yippers, that was quite a victory for supporters of the 2A and for D.C. in particular. Once in a while, some people choose to do the right thing.

tfo

[BamaBoy]

The Ninth Circuit subsequently decided to hear the case en banc (have all 11 judges decide). But they will undoubtedly wait for the SCOTUS decision now. Interesting that the 3-0 pro-gun decision was made by Carter and Clinton appointees.

[JJFlash]

The Ninth Circuit subsequently decided to hear the case en banc (have all 11 judges decide). But they will undoubtedly wait for the SCOTUS decision now. Interesting that the 3-0 pro-gun decision was made by Carter and Clinton appointees.

My world just doesn't make sense anymore...where will I turn? what will I do?