Pasifikawv
Member
High Court to Rule on Local Handgun Laws
Last edited by a moderator:
SCOTUS will take up 2A case
- Thread starter Pasifikawv
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
Just plucked it off the headlines myself!
Email Print Text Size
US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 08:26 AM MDT
Updated: Sep 30, 2009 08:27 AM MDT
WASHINGTON (AP) - US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Email Print Text Size
US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 08:26 AM MDT
Updated: Sep 30, 2009 08:27 AM MDT
WASHINGTON (AP) - US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
kwikrnu
Member
Hopefully they'll decide that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. No more of that incorporation crap.
Hoplophile
Member
The situation is essentially a duplicate of the DC cse -- Heller. And the make-up of the court hasn't changed, so the outcome should be the same.
I hope so.
I wonder how long until Dick Durbin, Dick Daley, and Mike Bloomberg come out ranting against it, saying it will make Chicago less safe (as if it is possible for Chicago to become any less safe)?
Here's Fox News on the decision to decide on incorporation of the Second Amendment:
High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights - US Supreme Court | Cases | Justices - FOXNews.com
High Court Will Decide Whether Strict Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights - US Supreme Court | Cases | Justices - FOXNews.com
FrankD45
Absent Comrade
I really hope so but the fact is, the cases are different. The DC decision was based on the fact that DC is "federal". The current case is a test of the 14th amendment which can be interpreted to mean that the states cannot pass laws that abridge the rights of individual citizens. In order to be effective, the amendment must be "incorporated", or made binding on the states.
Interestingly the process of incorporation resulted in the determination by SCOTUS that abortion sprang from the right to privacy from the "due process clause" of the 14th.
I hope that helps,
Frank
Hoplophile
Member
This has been a multi-step program all along. The Heller case (actually Parker et al) was chosen specifically because it WAS in DC, a federal enclave.
Chicago is step two: SCOTUS tossed the DC de facto handgun ban based on 2A grounds. The next step is to get the same decision (Chicago de facto handgun ban) in a state case, thus forcing incorporation.
Heller was only the beginning. We're about to embark on decades of Second Amendment jurisprudence as the SCOTUS decides exactly how far the scope of the 2A extends.
I worked two years at SAF before moving over to CCRKBA, where I was executive director for almost 10 years. I'm still their legislative director. The McDonald case is SAF's case (along with the plaintiffs and ISRA).
Spotteddog
Member
Not really germane I suppose.
But isn't it amusing how many billable hours are being burned up trying to discredit what some arguably smart now dead guys wrote 200+ years ago? If the words still scare Hell out of the powers that be some 2 centuries later, I figure I'll settle for their meaning as is.
But isn't it amusing how many billable hours are being burned up trying to discredit what some arguably smart now dead guys wrote 200+ years ago? If the words still scare Hell out of the powers that be some 2 centuries later, I figure I'll settle for their meaning as is.
The other promising thing is that there are 4 separate bills in the Illinois legislature to pass conceal & carry.
Also, I love this quote from one of the guys in Chicago:
That’s because New York state and California have better gun restrictions at the state level, Heimke said. He said if more local communities had laws as strict as Chicago’s that would have lowered Chicago’s crime rate.
Yes... So, rather than admit you made it open season on law abiding citizens, and wish that you had done it for the whole state or country, you just blame it on the rest of us. Way to go.
Also, I love this quote from one of the guys in Chicago:
That’s because New York state and California have better gun restrictions at the state level, Heimke said. He said if more local communities had laws as strict as Chicago’s that would have lowered Chicago’s crime rate.
Yes... So, rather than admit you made it open season on law abiding citizens, and wish that you had done it for the whole state or country, you just blame it on the rest of us. Way to go.
1066
US Veteran
It seems very unlikely that the Supreme Court will not find for the plantiff in the Chicago case.
Even the 9th Circuit in CA, one of the more liberal, anti-gun courts in the country could not ignore the 14th amendment. In Nordyke v. King the 9th Circuit said:
"Though we conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the protections of the Second Amendment to state and local governments, the question remains whether such application invalidates the specific Ordinance the Nordykes challenge."
The good news is that although this finding did not help Nordyke (the Court went on to hold that the ordnance challeged by Nordyke did not unconstitutional infringe on the 2nd Amendment), they did find that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated by the 14th.
The bad news is that Nordyke v. King may become the "blueprint" for future anti-gun judges to pay lip service to the second amendment while eliminating any practical effect. This is just a continuation of the road map set forth by Justice Breyer in his Heller dissent that yes you "may" have a right to bear arms but it is not absolute and it is subject to restriction by the government.
We can only hope that by winning one case a time we get the 2nd Amendment the respect it deserves from the judicial branch.
Even the 9th Circuit in CA, one of the more liberal, anti-gun courts in the country could not ignore the 14th amendment. In Nordyke v. King the 9th Circuit said:
"Though we conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the protections of the Second Amendment to state and local governments, the question remains whether such application invalidates the specific Ordinance the Nordykes challenge."
The good news is that although this finding did not help Nordyke (the Court went on to hold that the ordnance challeged by Nordyke did not unconstitutional infringe on the 2nd Amendment), they did find that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated by the 14th.
The bad news is that Nordyke v. King may become the "blueprint" for future anti-gun judges to pay lip service to the second amendment while eliminating any practical effect. This is just a continuation of the road map set forth by Justice Breyer in his Heller dissent that yes you "may" have a right to bear arms but it is not absolute and it is subject to restriction by the government.
We can only hope that by winning one case a time we get the 2nd Amendment the respect it deserves from the judicial branch.
Message from the Illinois State Rifle Assoc.
SPECIAL ALERT
As you may already know, the campaign to restore your 2nd Amendment rights took a big step forward yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear McDonald v. Chicago – the Illinois State Rifle Association's lawsuit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban.
The road ahead for McDonald v. Chicago will be long and tedious. Here are what we believe will be important milestones:
1. By late November 2009, briefs from our side must be submitted to the court.
2. Chicago will be given time to offer its reply and we will be given the opportunity to rebut Chicago's reply.
3. Oral arguments in the case are expected to commence in January 2010.
4. A decision in the case is expected sometime in June of 2010.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, the battle to preserve and protect your right to keep and bear arms will not be over. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, the gun control movement will surely respond by trying to pass all sorts of gun control laws that they will claim are “reasonable” and keeping with the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.
If the Supreme Court rules against us in this case, you better believe that the gun control movement will pull out all the stops in its campaign to obliterate the Second Amendment and your right to own guns for lawful purposes. They will be emboldened, motivated, well funded, and eager to come take your guns away from you.
No matter how the court rules, a strong and united gun-owning public is the best defense against the extremist gun control movement.
Here are the things that YOU need to do, NOW, to preserve and protect your gun rights.
1. Join the Illinois State Rifle Association (How to join the ISRA) today, and convince at least one friend to join as well.
2. Make a generous donation so that we may continue the fight to protect your gun rights tomorrow, and in the years to come, remember, the fight for freedom, isn't free!
Donate on-line here, or over the phone at 815-635-8198. If you would like to mail or fax a donation, we have a printable form here.
3. Stay tuned for further alerts on this topic.
4. Post this alert to all internet blogs and bulletin boards to which you belong. Also, pass this alert on to your gun owning friends and fellow sporting club members. Ask them to forward this alert to their friend far and wide. Although the suit targets the local ordinance in Chicago, the implications of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment are national in scope.
SPECIAL ALERT
As you may already know, the campaign to restore your 2nd Amendment rights took a big step forward yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear McDonald v. Chicago – the Illinois State Rifle Association's lawsuit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban.
The road ahead for McDonald v. Chicago will be long and tedious. Here are what we believe will be important milestones:
1. By late November 2009, briefs from our side must be submitted to the court.
2. Chicago will be given time to offer its reply and we will be given the opportunity to rebut Chicago's reply.
3. Oral arguments in the case are expected to commence in January 2010.
4. A decision in the case is expected sometime in June of 2010.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, the battle to preserve and protect your right to keep and bear arms will not be over. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, the gun control movement will surely respond by trying to pass all sorts of gun control laws that they will claim are “reasonable” and keeping with the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.
If the Supreme Court rules against us in this case, you better believe that the gun control movement will pull out all the stops in its campaign to obliterate the Second Amendment and your right to own guns for lawful purposes. They will be emboldened, motivated, well funded, and eager to come take your guns away from you.
No matter how the court rules, a strong and united gun-owning public is the best defense against the extremist gun control movement.
Here are the things that YOU need to do, NOW, to preserve and protect your gun rights.
1. Join the Illinois State Rifle Association (How to join the ISRA) today, and convince at least one friend to join as well.
2. Make a generous donation so that we may continue the fight to protect your gun rights tomorrow, and in the years to come, remember, the fight for freedom, isn't free!
Donate on-line here, or over the phone at 815-635-8198. If you would like to mail or fax a donation, we have a printable form here.
3. Stay tuned for further alerts on this topic.
4. Post this alert to all internet blogs and bulletin boards to which you belong. Also, pass this alert on to your gun owning friends and fellow sporting club members. Ask them to forward this alert to their friend far and wide. Although the suit targets the local ordinance in Chicago, the implications of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment are national in scope.
Hoplophile
Member
Vegetamen, it's the nature of the business. Just ignore the beg portion of the letter and act on the informative portion.
I belong to more than two dozen gun groups, from national down to state & local. If I gave to everyone, I'd be broke. And that's probably true of most others on this list. You do what you can do, that's all.
Our strength is in grassroots, not in giving money to be passed on to politicians. Overall, the gun lobby delivers votes, not cash. And pressure on politicians via letters, e-mails and calls.
Each of us has a role to play. Just focus on that.
I belong to more than two dozen gun groups, from national down to state & local. If I gave to everyone, I'd be broke. And that's probably true of most others on this list. You do what you can do, that's all.
Our strength is in grassroots, not in giving money to be passed on to politicians. Overall, the gun lobby delivers votes, not cash. And pressure on politicians via letters, e-mails and calls.
Each of us has a role to play. Just focus on that.
