• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

SCOTUS Will Look At Local Gun Laws Next Year

Mike

Well-known member
Allowing local gun laws to supercede the "Right" given by the Constitution would equal a state banning "Free Speech". I don't see how it can happen.



High court to look at local gun control laws
The Bulletin | 10/1/1009 | Mark Sherman


WASHINGTON — 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.
SCOTUS To Rule On Gun Rights
September 30, 2009 - 6:25 PM | by: Robert Lee
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday to decide whether the Second Amendment applies to "gun ban" laws.

It choose a Chicago case in which Otis McDonald and others have filed suit against the City of Chicago.

The question presented, " Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunites or Due Process Clauses."

The statement of the case;

The City of Chicago enforces a handgun ban identical to that struck down by this Court as a violation of Washington D.C. resident's Second Amendment rights. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that fundamental individual rights may not be violated by any form of government throughout the United States. Accordingly, Chicago's handgun ban must meet the same fate as that which befell the District of Columbia's former law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS ruling will be....If they throw out 150 years precedent of cities/communities being able to set special gun laws and gun bans/gun checks-- like the Earps, Bat Masterson, Bill Tilghman, etc. enforced back in the 1860's-70's-80's in towns like Dodge City and Tombstone- and that many cities/towns have had to some extent since then....

The most interesting thing I see- is from what I can find- back then it was pretty well accepted that the wishs/rights of the local community and the local residents prevailed- and their decisions on what was best for their community/town (states rights)- and no one from outside the area was running around screaming about second amendment rights being usurped... If you didn't like the law there- you just didn't go there...
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS ruling will be....If they throw out 150 years precedent of cities/communities being able to set special gun laws and gun bans/gun checks-- like the Earps, Bat Masterson, Bill Tilghman, etc. enforced back in the 1860's-70's-80's in towns like Dodge City and Tombstone- and that many cities/towns have had to some extent since then....

The most interesting thing I see- is from what I can find- back then it was pretty well accepted that the wishs/rights of the local community and the local residents prevailed- and their decisions on what was best for their community/town (states rights)- and no one from outside the area was running around screaming about second amendment rights being usurped... If you didn't like the law there- you just didn't go there...

Over the years there has been lots of local and state laws that been over throwed. Think of all the Racist laws that local towns had that had to be changed because it was unconstitutional.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Mike, one little thing about your comment that is wrong. The right to bear arms was not given to us by the constitution. The bill of rights are God-given rights that the bill of rights acknowledges, if one believes the state gave us something, the state can take it as well.

OT, your argument is exactly right in a true democracy, but we are a republic and 51% of a population has no right to take the rights of the other 49%. This case is built around a man who wants to be able to exercise his right. I don't really care about the laws passed in those wild west towns. The people should have had a militia and stood together. You swore an oath to protect the constitution, if a law is unconstitutional it is the duty of the Sheriff, as one of the last checks and balances, to not enforce that law. The Sheriff has the jurisdiction over his county over the State and Federal government. That is why the Sheriff is one of the only law enforcement positions that is elected by the people. I only bring this up because you have often argued "rule of law," but the point is that every law passed is not constitutional, if it was there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

Study after study in many countries has shown that murder and suicide rates do not raise with increased gun ownership, when people don't have the ability to defend themselves, crime gets worse. Our cities in this country with the highest crime rates are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. It makes sense because the laws only effect law abiding citizens. When England passed its handgun ban after a crazy guy shot a bunch of people, 10 years later the death/injuries involving a handgun went up 340%. Nearly 90% of adult murderers have a criminal record.

It's one thing for a state to do a background check on a person, I can go with that, but to not allow ownership or to make it insanely difficult is simply unconstitutional. The constitutional amendment to end slavery didn't stop only the federal government from having slaves, Maine (or any other State) can't vote to allow it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But interestingly this Supreme Court Case will pit 2 very conservative principles against each other-- whether the Constitutional rights to state and local control supercede the Constitutional rights that allow Federal Control to the 2nd amendment- and whether 150 + years state and local precedent
supercede current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..... :???:

Conservative Chief Judge Easterbrook- in his opinion- ruled that states/local rights and all those years of precedent cases superseded...

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon,'' Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Especially when you realize that some of these local gun bans/laws/regulations have been held legal since the days of Wyatt Earp-- and even NYC Sullivan Act has been in place since 1911....

A year ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision establishing the constitutional right of Americans to own guns. But the justices did not explain what the practical effect of that ruling would be on city and state gun laws.


Could a city still ban handguns? The justices said the District of Columbia could not, but only because it is a special federal district. The question of the constitutionality of existing city and state gun laws was left unanswered.



In a 3-0 decision handed down Tuesday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges said they were bound by legal precedents that held the Constitution's Second Amendment applied to federal laws only, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.


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,'' Judge 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.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2nd Amendment

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.

the constitution protects the right of the people to bear arms, states don't have the right to take the right away.

The 14th amendment, due process clause, will also come into effect in this case. It has already been used to apply most of the bill of rights to all the states. If it applies even one it should be all.

Conservative/Liberal, it doesn't matter. This is about standing up for the constitution. Chicago, as well as other places, has used the power of democracy to remove peoples rights.

I find fault in your quote from Judge Easterbrook, it assumes the right to carry a weapon (I'm glad he said weapon, because the 2nd isn't specific of any type for a reason) is given to us by the framers of the amendment and by the constitution or the government. That is false, the right to have arms/weapons is a God-given right, a right every person is born with. The Constitution and the government's duty is simply to protect that right that people already have.

Also, the States didn't ratify the Constitution until the bill of rights was added.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Ben H said:
the constitution protects the right of the people to bear arms, states don't have the right to take the right away.

Its hard to believe we even have to discuss this issue. No one would allow the states to take away freedom of speech or other rights so why should they have the right to take away the right to bear arms? Pretty simple case to me!
 
Top