PDA

View Full Version : High Court to Examine Local Handgun Laws


Moby
09-30-2009, 04:39 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html?hpid=topnews

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 30, 2009; 2:11 PM

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide whether the right to own guns for self-defense, announced by the court last year when it struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, also covers states and other cities with gun-control laws.

The landmark decision in Heller v. District of Columbia did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves like the District.

The case the court accepted Wednesday concerns the city of Chicago, which bans most handguns.

In the Heller case, the court held for the first time that individuals have a right to gun ownership. Until then, the court had only recognized that the constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" protected a state's ability to maintain a militia.

Other court precedents have held that the Second Amendment restricts only federal law, as was the case with most of the Bill of Rights. Through the years, the court has applied most of the amendments, but not all, to the states, a process called "incorporation." The Heller decision specifically left the question about the Second Amendment for another day.

Alan Gura, the Alexandria lawyer who successfully challenged the District's law, sued the city of Chicago, which has a handgun ban virtually identical to Washington's, plus other restrictions. Ruling in that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said only the Supreme Court can decide whether the Second Amendment applies.

That was the same position a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit took in a Second Amendment challenge to a New York state law. The panel included Sonia Sotomayor, who will now apparently be able to decide the issue as the Supreme Court's newest justice.

Gura, and a group of both conservative and liberal legal scholars who have filed briefs in the Chicago case, argue that that the Second Amendment right should be applied through the 14th Amendment. The court could decide just that issue, or issue a broader ruling that touches on what kinds of restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional.

The Heller decision said some restrictions could meet constitutional standards. Gura said he hoped the justices "issue a definitive ruling" on specific restrictions.

The case, McDonald v. Chicago, will be argued after the first of the year.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Chicago case is "unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules."

"Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities," he said, "such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense."

foxbaron
09-30-2009, 10:13 PM
The likelihood that the Supremes will have the balls to say that:

"self-defense is an inalienable right of all people and the method of said defense, is the choice of the individual, and not the state"

is probably unlikely.

Would be nice, but unlikely.

Smurf-Herder
10-03-2009, 08:35 AM
This should be interesting.

In principle, the Bill of Rights establishes an "individual's rights" as a human being and citizen of the country - apart from and above the structure of any governmental body.

In that respect, an individual's possession of arms as self-defense in itself, would be an inalienable right.

Independent Harry
10-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Here all along I thought the federal government under Obama was going to take away our guns and enslave us into a socialist/communist rule...

I remember when I went and bought my handgun back in February of this year. All the guys in the gun store were clearly conservative and I could tell they all listened to right wing pundits. As I was buying my gun they were explaining to me how I better buy what i need right now, because as I was making this purchase Obama had bills in congress that were going to take away my ability to buy a gun...8 months later and still nothing...

doctordog
10-03-2009, 04:58 PM
Here all along I thought the federal government under Obama was going to take away our guns and enslave us into a socialist/communist rule...

I remember when I went and bought my handgun back in February of this year. All the guys in the gun store were clearly conservative and I could tell they all listened to right wing pundits. As I was buying my gun they were explaining to me how I better buy what i need right now, because as I was making this purchase Obama had bills in congress that were going to take away my ability to buy a gun...8 months later and still nothing...

They can never eliminate one's ability to buy a gun. Guns are just like pot, crack, and cocaine. Anyone that wants it can get it.

Mr, gone
10-03-2009, 06:03 PM
They can never eliminate one's ability to buy a gun. Guns are just like pot, crack, and cocaine. Anyone that wants it can get it.

The only reason that these drugs are still available is the government wants it that way. They also need to remain available to continue to support the hugely wasteful 'war on drugs' for these last 35 years!:talktothehand:

doctordog
10-03-2009, 06:13 PM
The only reason that these drugs are still available is the government wants it that way. They also need to remain available to continue to support the hugely wasteful 'war on drugs' for these last 35 years!:talktothehand:

I disagree, meth is almost non existent in my area now thanks to the attention given to it in my area, the cookers and users are out of here!:thumbsup:

Mr, gone
10-04-2009, 04:50 PM
The fantasy that someday all illegal drugs will go away, is what allows this 'war' to continue. Just like other drugs, meth in your area has simply lost it's flare. I'm quite confident that these addicts have adopted something else to quench their thirst.

doctordog
10-04-2009, 04:58 PM
The fantasy that someday all illegal drugs will go away, is what allows this 'war' to continue. Just like other drugs, meth in your area has simply lost it's flare. I'm quite confident that these addicts have adopted something else to quench their thirst.

I disagree, we finally have have officials here that can't be bought and that has made the difference.

ROdger Right
10-04-2009, 05:23 PM
Yea they cracke ddown on meth labs and all of that in the surrounding areas but heroin is still big but anything is better than meth.

foxbaron
10-05-2009, 12:36 AM
I disagree, we finally have have officials here that can't be bought and that has made the difference.

I hope they continue to be successful in keeping it out.

Sometimes though they just change the name of the drug and the folks on the street are too stupid to realize it.

ME2
10-05-2009, 08:45 AM
I disagree, meth is almost non existent in my area now thanks to the attention given to it in my area, the cookers and users are out of here!:thumbsup:

Where is "your area"? Also was wondering how long this has been in effect.

CosmicRocker
10-05-2009, 09:03 AM
The landmark decision in Heller v. District of Columbia did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves like the District. as much as i HATE guns, where is the logic that DC-even being a Federal enclave - citizens are " different" than those of states.

Load and Lock seems to be the mantra for this country.
( apologies if i got that term wrong - i don't even wanna know)

ROdger Right
10-05-2009, 03:44 PM
I believe this case is about grabbing control of some guns in liberal areas like chicago, and making sure its legal on a city or state level.