SCOTUS agrees to hear Chicago gun ban case; Alan Gura on Glenn Beck show at 5PM Eastern

imported post

Just heard this, Glenn Beck is interviewing Alan Gura, and will have him on his TV show today as well.

TFred


High court to look at local gun control laws

By MARK SHERMAN (AP)

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.

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

imported post

From the Chicago Tribune.

TFred


Supreme Court To Hear Chicago Guns Case on Second Amendment

David G. Savage

Tribune Washington Bureau

9:37 AM CDT, September 30, 2009

Washington

The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns.

At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.

The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free speech or the 4th Amendment's right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim was to preserve "well-regulated militias."

This quite narrow view of the amendment conflicted with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls.

Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual's right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.

But since the nation's capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th Century rulings that said 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions.

Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and the nearby Village of Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court's earlier rulings.

But the Supreme Court today said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.

Lawyers for the gun owners argued that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" set out in the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities.

Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights.

Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting" such matters as an "establishment of religion" or "abridging the freedom of speech," it was understood originally to limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of the other parts of Bill of Rights.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty…without due process of law."

In the mid-20th Century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and the freedom from "unreasonable searches" are part of the "liberty" protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.

The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the corut should rule either that the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment.

Lawyers for Chicago had urged the Court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities. "Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns," they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said, while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.

It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.

The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January or February. The cases is McDonald vs. Chicago. *** David.savage@latimes.com

imported post

This is a very fast moving story... here's a link to the latest stories from Google News.

TFred


http://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22supreme+court%22+chicago+gun&scoring=n

imported post

Good news from the Washington Post:

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

imported post

The man is whipped, but that won't keep him from lying and spewing propaganda to the very end.

DUCT TAPE ALERT! Bold emphasis is mine to illustrate the hogwash.


Brady President Paul Helmke on Supreme Court Taking Gun Case

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"It's not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether its new definition of the Second Amendment applies to states and localities as well as federal enclaves - the so-called ‘incorporation issue' - in the City of Chicago case. Since the day the Supreme Court first held that individuals have a right to guns in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller a year ago, we expected that the Court's next step would be to resolve this issue.

"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, 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. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed."

###

imported post

TFred wrote:

The man is whipped, but that won't keep him from lying and spewing propaganda to the very end.

DUCT TAPE ALERT! Bold emphasis is mine to illustrate the hogwash.


Brady President Paul Helmke on Supreme Court Taking Gun Case

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"It's not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether its new definition of the Second Amendment applies to states and localities as well as federal enclaves - the so-called ‘incorporation issue' - in the City of Chicago case. Since the day the Supreme Court first held that individuals have a right to guns in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller a year ago, we expected that the Court's next step would be to resolve this issue.

"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, 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. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed."

###

Click to expand...

In case y'all hav'nt realized this before, whenever Helmke mentions "criminals" he's referring to us law abiding gun owners.

imported post

Screw Paul Helmke.

:cuss:



SCOTUS will hear SAF challenge to Chicago handgun ban

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Supreme-Court-accepts-SAF-challenge-to-Chicago-handgun-ban




Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/yd8b5yp

imported post

Huck wrote:

TFred wrote:

The man is whipped, but that won't keep him from lying and spewing propaganda to the very end.

DUCT TAPE ALERT! Bold emphasis is mine to illustrate the hogwash.


Brady President Paul Helmke on Supreme Court Taking Gun Case

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"It's not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether its new definition of the Second Amendment applies to states and localities as well as federal enclaves - the so-called ‘incorporation issue' - in the City of Chicago case. Since the day the Supreme Court first held that individuals have a right to guns in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller a year ago, we expected that the Court's next step would be to resolve this issue.

"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, 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. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed."

###

Click to expand...

In case y'all hav'nt realized this before, whenever Helmke mentions "criminals" he's referring to us law abiding gun owners.

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah is all I see. "Narrowly limited" my rosey red behind. SCOTUS never said that inHeller. I believe it was more like "inthe very least one must be able to have handguns in their homes".

He's just trying to sooth his mindless masses into contentment. He wants them to see the gun control glass as half full rather than half empty. That's all. Just blowing smoke. Incorporation is out of their control at this point and they're not happy.

imported post

So, on one hand, Sotomayor will vote no on RKBA, on the other hand, the Court won't have to decide RKBA with nunchaku.

imported post

Here is the transcript to Glenn Beck's interview with Alan Gura on his radio show today.

My favorite part, from Alan:

And it's fairly obvious that now that we know the Second Amendment applies to the federal government, the next big question is, okay, does it apply to state and local governments. Because most gun laws live at the state and local level. And let's face it, Glenn: If congress can't take a gun away and President Obama can't take a gun away but the mayor takes your gun away, you still don't have a gun.

Click to expand...

TFred

ETA: Quote

imported post

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-rule-on-gun-rights-terrorism-law/#more-11314

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston |

Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.

The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.

[ ...]

Click to expand...

imported post

TFred wrote:

The man is whipped, but that won't keep him from lying and spewing propaganda to the very end.

DUCT TAPE ALERT!  Bold emphasis is mine to illustrate the hogwash.


Brady President Paul Helmke on Supreme Court Taking Gun Case

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"It's not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether its new definition of the Second Amendment applies to states and localities as well as federal enclaves - the so-called ‘incorporation issue' - in the City of Chicago case.   Since the day the Supreme Court first held that individuals have a right to guns in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller a year ago, we expected that the Court's next step would be to resolve this issue.

"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, 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. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed."

###

Click to expand...

1 - Every time I see his name, I see Hemlock until I re-read it.
2 - I put him in the same category as the professional race card pullers (A. Sharpton, J. Jackson). Every time they open their mouth, lies and filth spews out, and every day, more people are learning to recognize it.
3 - of the ~170 challenges only a few have already succeeded. Most of them are still rolling. Who knew that failure could be declared before there was resolution?

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

So, on one hand, Sotomayor will vote no on RKBA, on the other hand, the Court won't have to decide RKBA with nunchaku.

Click to expand...

The court is still 5-4 in favor of the constitution, and +1 on not deciding RKBA with mall ninja appellants.

imported post

inbox485 wrote:

TFred wrote:

The man is whipped, but that won't keep him from lying and spewing propaganda to the very end.

DUCT TAPE ALERT! Bold emphasis is mine to illustrate the hogwash.


Brady President Paul Helmke on Supreme Court Taking Gun Case

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"It's not surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether its new definition of the Second Amendment applies to states and localities as well as federal enclaves - the so-called ‘incorporation issue' - in the City of Chicago case. Since the day the Supreme Court first held that individuals have a right to guns in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller a year ago, we expected that the Court's next step would be to resolve this issue.

"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, 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. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed."

###

Click to expand...

1 - Every time I see his name, I see Hemlock until I re-read it.

Click to expand...

How appropriate. The poison executioner of humankind.

imported post

TFred wrote:

Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.

Click to expand...

Translation:

"Merely send it back to us so we can devise ways to go around it in the guise of complying with the law."

Or am I missing something?

imported post

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."

Click to expand...

Unreal. So if the local government legalizes arbitrary arrests and lynchings of black people, then that's a "local difference to be cherished as an element of liberty?"

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Some elements of liberty are non-negotiable, and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is one of the most fundamental.