McDonald vs Chicago: Historic 2nd Amendment Supreme Court Case Coming Up Soon
NEWEST ADDITIONS are First
Added10/3/09 From the NRA Website, Chicago Tribune Author: Steve Chapman
The end of the Chicago handgun ban
The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the city's many criminals. It's bad news for Mayor Daley and other supporters of the existing ban on handguns, one of the most draconian in the nation. Chicago has long behaved as though gun owners don't have any rights. It is probably going to find out they do.
Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Washington, D.C. ordinance banning handguns. "The Second Amendment," it found, "protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." But Chicago insisted on keeping its law.
Odds are it will lose. Last year's ruling was limited to the District of Columbia, which is unique in being a federal enclave. The only question in this case is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as most other freedoms in the Bill of Rights now do.
It's hard to think of a compelling reason that the court would say states don't have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Law professor Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University told me that he gives the Chicago law only a one in five chance of surviving.
The handgun ban had no effect on crime rates, and lifting it wouldn't make our violence problems any worse. But it would give law-abiding citizens a better means to protect themselves.
Posted at 09:59:28 AM
Added 10/1/09
High Court Agrees to Hear Gun-Rights Case
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether some state gun regulations violate the Constitution, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of the right to bear arms in the 21st century.
* Vote: Should the Second Amendment limit state and local gun regulations?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Chicago's ban on the possession of handguns. WSJ's Jess Bravin details this case and previews others the Court will hear in the coming weeks.
Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital.
That decision rested on the District of Columbia's unique status as a federal enclave, and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias under the Constitution, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.
The same lawyer who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that ban the possession of most handguns. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.
See video at: http://online.wsj.com/video/the-2nd-...7B03AF572.html
The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states, as well as on the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also should be read this way.
The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel in the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial-arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court said it remained bound by the 1886 precedent. The decision was raised during Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings by opponents who said she failed to show concern for the right to carry a weapon in self-defense.
In San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, implicitly overruled the 19th-century case.
Now the Supreme Court will step in to resolve these contradictory holdings. By accepting the Chicago case, the court allowed Justice Sotomayor to take part. She probably would have recused herself if the New York case were brought to the Supreme Court for argument.
Scholars have long debated the meaning of the Second Amendment. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that is not necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: "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."
In 1939, the court upheld a federal restriction on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns. The justices said then that the Second Amendment concerned state militias, whose members typically provided their own weapons, and that no evidence had been presented to show that a sawed-off shotgun was "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
In the 2008 Heller case, the court split 5-4 along ideological lines to strike down the Washington ordinance. The two longest-serving justices, Antonin Scalia for the majority and John Paul Stevens in dissent, produced dueling historical treatises replete with references to weapons rights through the ages, with particular focuses on the modern implications of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the regulations imposed by the 13 colonies in the revolutionary era.
(McDonald v. City of Chicago)
Separately, the court agreed to consider a central tool in the federal government's antiterrorism arsenal, the law that criminalizes providing "material support" to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco struck down some provisions of the law as too vague, but upheld others as constitutional. Both the government and challengers appealed.
(Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder)
Both cases are expected to be heard and decided during the term that starts Monday and ends in June.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A5
FIRST POSTING:
This latest NRA announcement is posted here, where I will try to keep up to date on the progress. This case is significant for states who did not write into their Constitution, an equivalent 2nd Amendment Protection. There has always been this discussion as to whether the Bill of Rights affects only federal laws.
Did the Illinois Constitution have such a 2nd Amendment provision? My state does.
From NRA email:
Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago -- Monumental Second Amendment Case
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.
"It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."
-National Rifle Association-
Heilung
Added10/3/09 From the NRA Website, Chicago Tribune Author: Steve Chapman
The end of the Chicago handgun ban
The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the city's many criminals. It's bad news for Mayor Daley and other supporters of the existing ban on handguns, one of the most draconian in the nation. Chicago has long behaved as though gun owners don't have any rights. It is probably going to find out they do.
Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Washington, D.C. ordinance banning handguns. "The Second Amendment," it found, "protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." But Chicago insisted on keeping its law.
Odds are it will lose. Last year's ruling was limited to the District of Columbia, which is unique in being a federal enclave. The only question in this case is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as most other freedoms in the Bill of Rights now do.
It's hard to think of a compelling reason that the court would say states don't have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Law professor Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University told me that he gives the Chicago law only a one in five chance of surviving.
The handgun ban had no effect on crime rates, and lifting it wouldn't make our violence problems any worse. But it would give law-abiding citizens a better means to protect themselves.
Posted at 09:59:28 AM
Added 10/1/09
High Court Agrees to Hear Gun-Rights Case
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether some state gun regulations violate the Constitution, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of the right to bear arms in the 21st century.
* Vote: Should the Second Amendment limit state and local gun regulations?
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Chicago's ban on the possession of handguns. WSJ's Jess Bravin details this case and previews others the Court will hear in the coming weeks.
Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital.
That decision rested on the District of Columbia's unique status as a federal enclave, and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias under the Constitution, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.
The same lawyer who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that ban the possession of most handguns. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.
See video at: http://online.wsj.com/video/the-2nd-...7B03AF572.html
The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states, as well as on the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also should be read this way.
The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel in the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial-arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court said it remained bound by the 1886 precedent. The decision was raised during Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings by opponents who said she failed to show concern for the right to carry a weapon in self-defense.
In San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, implicitly overruled the 19th-century case.
Now the Supreme Court will step in to resolve these contradictory holdings. By accepting the Chicago case, the court allowed Justice Sotomayor to take part. She probably would have recused herself if the New York case were brought to the Supreme Court for argument.
Scholars have long debated the meaning of the Second Amendment. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that is not necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: "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."
In 1939, the court upheld a federal restriction on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns. The justices said then that the Second Amendment concerned state militias, whose members typically provided their own weapons, and that no evidence had been presented to show that a sawed-off shotgun was "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
In the 2008 Heller case, the court split 5-4 along ideological lines to strike down the Washington ordinance. The two longest-serving justices, Antonin Scalia for the majority and John Paul Stevens in dissent, produced dueling historical treatises replete with references to weapons rights through the ages, with particular focuses on the modern implications of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the regulations imposed by the 13 colonies in the revolutionary era.
(McDonald v. City of Chicago)
Separately, the court agreed to consider a central tool in the federal government's antiterrorism arsenal, the law that criminalizes providing "material support" to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco struck down some provisions of the law as too vague, but upheld others as constitutional. Both the government and challengers appealed.
(Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder)
Both cases are expected to be heard and decided during the term that starts Monday and ends in June.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A5
FIRST POSTING:
This latest NRA announcement is posted here, where I will try to keep up to date on the progress. This case is significant for states who did not write into their Constitution, an equivalent 2nd Amendment Protection. There has always been this discussion as to whether the Bill of Rights affects only federal laws.
Did the Illinois Constitution have such a 2nd Amendment provision? My state does.
From NRA email:
Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago -- Monumental Second Amendment Case
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.
"It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."
-National Rifle Association-
Heilung
Total Comments 0
