Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling, LATimes.com

imported post

http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/nationworld/nation/~3/VByQPANGaLs/la-na-court-guns28-2010feb28,0,4391070.story

February 28, 2010
Reporting from Washington
When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.

On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.

"I only want a handgun in my home for my protection," said McDonald, 76.

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

"If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person," said Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.

In Chicago, New York and elsewhere, police say these stop-and-frisk searches make the streets safer by disarming thugs. "If this [ban] is overturned, we think there would be an increase in violence," Alvarez said.

Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

A ruling overturning the Chicago ordinance would open the door to gun rights suits nationwide. "You will see a wave of lawsuits against state and local gun laws. This is just the first shot in a broad-based gun rights offensive," said Dennis Henigan, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

The city's lawyers say firearms have been regulated throughout American history -- and without interference from federal judges. In the 1770s, Boston, Philadelphia and New York prohibited discharging a gun within the city. Even in the Wild West, cattle towns like Dodge City, Kan., required cowboys to turn in their guns.

But defenders of the 2nd Amendment say their goal is to restore the "right to keep and bear arms" to its proper place as a constitutional right.

In the end, the Supreme Court could decide that the right to have a gun applies only at home. If so, Chicago and other cities could adopt strict limits on public possession of a handgun even if the current ordinance is struck down.

But gun rights advocates say the 2nd Amendment applies more broadly and protects a right to have a gun for self-defense. In Washington, they filed a suit seeking a right to have a gun on the streets. In California, lawyers for the National Rifle Assn. say they plan to challenge the policy in Los Angeles County and elsewhere of refusing to issue "concealed carry" permits to most gun owners who want to carry a weapon in public.

But before such claims go forward, the Supreme Court must decide whether the 2nd Amendment reaches beyond federal laws. Though the answer may seem obvious today, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has historically been as limiting only laws from Washington.

The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Until the early part of the 20th century, it shielded Americans only from federal restrictions on free expression.

The 2nd Amendment says, "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." Throughout the 19th century, and until quite recently, the high court maintained that this clause was intended to give states the power to control armed militias.

But in recent decades, most Americans have come to believe the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a gun, regardless of whether they serve in a militia.

Two years ago, the high court agreed. By a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and said the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. However, since the district is a federal enclave, the justices did not rule on whether state and local ordinances could be challenged under the 2nd Amendment.

Gun rights advocates say the justices should declare that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, like free speech, and is protected from infringement by local, state or federal laws.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. "Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?" he asked at a news conference in Washington.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday and issue a ruling by late June.

imported post

We all know what happens when a "Must issue" concealed carry law goes into affect a few justified shootings and the neighborhoods cean up quick. Violent crime drops by 50% overnight and the police start breathing a little easier. There are some parts of Chicago that the cops won't even enter after dark.
No offense or anything, but I love how you guys post the weblinks, then post the whole story. Wasted space. Just my beef is all.

imported post

KansasMustang wrote:

We all know what happens when a "Must issue" concealed carry law goes into affect a few justified shootings and the neighborhoods cean up quick. Violent crime drops by 50% overnight and the police start breathing a little easier. There are some parts of Chicago that the cops won't even enter after dark.
No offense or anything, but I love how you guys post the weblinks, then post the whole story. Wasted space. Just my beef is all.

Click to expand...

I disagree with posting both the link and the story although in this case I could have done without the ad that had no bearing on the story. It is quite aggravating for someone to post a link to a story with some exaggerated headline and having to click on the link only to find it is just someone's rant about the same old things or better yet nothing at all to do with the title of the post. With that being said it is a wast when the same long story is quoted over and over in the same thread. If it is a long story a synopis of the story or C&P on the relavent parts so I can judge whether or not to click and read the entore story is helpful.

Either way always post the link or you will get called out for sources.

imported post

No, not "wasted space" really. Think about it a little more as to WHY someone might post the link AND article before getting testy with the OP. So relax, forget the beef, and try "chikin" for a change (Chick-fil-A's "Eat mor chickin")! [Besides, if you also mean that it takes too long to download a "long" post, drop your sorryDial-Up and get DSL or cable Internet...it's 2010 for gosh sakes, not 1993,and it's NOT expensive any more. Why should the rest of us dumb-downbecause ofslow dinosaur Dial-Up users?]

Anyway,as time goes on, at some point the LINK often no longer works and so eventually, the linked articlesare dropped orMOVED to somewhere else and can't be found. Maybe theygo to a website'sarchives or simply are deleted as "old news,"I don't know. But the point is, a thread then eventually refers to an article (link only posted)but it's not THERE anymore (like lots of linksto pictures)...so people can't read what the OP was talking about. Not good.

So if the link is posted, and as long as it still links to the article, people can go to the original source but later on, when the link no longer works, at least the article is STILL available in the thread for readers down the road because it's citedin the thread...and as long as the thread exists, the article also exists.

Make sense now?

-- John D.

imported post

The issues that I struggle with are, copyrights (an effective credit must be given), archive provenance (many link URL are evanescent) and an effective citation to my source.

If you see ads then your security suite is ineffective or needs tuning. Your idea of "wasted space" is obsolete and based on the groundspace in the CSS style sheet. It is all really just a kilobyte of coded text.

And, finally, I don't post for the approval of a couple of Anony Mouses. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

imported post

[font="Verdana,Sans-serif"]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100228/D9E4VH083.html

Feb 28, 12:00 AM (ET) By MARK SHERMAN[/font][font="Verdana,Sans-serif"]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gun control advocates think, if not pray, they can win by losing when the Supreme Court decides whether the constitutional right to possess guns serves as a check on state and local regulation of firearms.

The justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment - like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights - applies to states as well as the federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.

But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns.

Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

The new lawsuits were begun almost immediately after the court's blockbuster ruling in 2008 that struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. In that case, the court ruled for the first time that individuals have a right keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Because the nation's capital is a federal enclave, that ruling applied only to federal laws.

The challenges to the Chicago area laws, which are strikingly similar to the Washington law, are part of an aggressive push by gun rights proponents in the courts and state legislatures.

Courts are considering many gun laws following the justice's 2008 decision. Massachusetts' highest state court is examining the validity of a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.

Two federal appeals courts have raised questions about gun possession convictions of people who previously had been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. A suit in Washington challenges the capital's ban on carrying loaded guns on public streets.

Lawmakers in several states are pushing for proposals favored by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. The Virginia Legislature is considering repealing a law that limits handgun purchases to one a month. That law was enacted in 1993 because Virginia was the No. 1 supplier of guns used in crimes in other states. A separate proposal in Virginia would allow people with a concealed-weapon permit to take hidden guns into restaurants that sell alcohol, as long as those patrons don't drink.

Chicago is defending its gun laws at the high court. Mayor Richard Daley said a ruling against his city would spawn even more suits nationwide and lead to more gun violence.

"How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?" Daley said at a Washington news conference last week that also included the parents of a Chicago teenager who was shot on a bus as he headed home from school.

Annette Nance-Holt said her only child, 16-year-old Blair Holt, shielded his friend when a gang member boarded a bus and began shooting at rival gang members.
"You might ask, 'What good is Chicago's handgun law if so many of our young people are still being shot?'" Nance-Holt said. "All I can say is, imagine how many more would be if the law were not there."

Gun rights advocates say such killings should serve as reminders that handgun bans and other gun laws do nothing to protect people who obey the law.

Indeed, 76-year-old Otis McDonald said he joined the suit in Chicago because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.

The thrust of the legal arguments in the case is over how the Supreme Court might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.

In earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court has done so by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

The court also has relied on that same clause - "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" - in cases that established a woman's right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

This is the approach the NRA favors.

But many conservative and legal scholars - as well as the Chicago challengers - want the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

They argue this clause was intended as a broad guarantee of the civil rights of the former slaves, but that a Supreme Court decision in 1873 effectively blocked its use.

Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, these scholars say.

This approach might enable challenges to arcane state laws that limit economic competition, said Clark M. Neily III of the public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He pointed to a Louisiana law that protects existing florists by requiring a license before someone can arrange or sell flowers. The licensing exam is graded by florists, he noted.

"No reasonable person thinks that law has a legitimate purpose," Neily said. But he said, "Right now, once you get a law like this on the books, it's almost impossible to get rid of."

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.
[/font]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman posted:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. "Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?" he asked at a news conference in Washington.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things the founders did not envision about our country 230 years later, and I'm certain that they would be much more concerned about the criminals running loose on the streets who are perpetrating these crimes, than the tools they are using to do so.

I think they would be appalled at the current level of restriction we have allowed our government to place on ownership and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

TFred

imported post

"Indeed, 76-year-old Otis McDonald said he joined the suit in Chicago because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs."

So what happens when he leaves the house? A "Death Wish III" scenario?

It's a shame and disgrace that in America, ANYONE has to be fearful of gangs. Had our "leadership" any guts -- let alone take the "War on Crime" seriously -- gangsters wouldbe hunted down, pulled out from whatever rock they hide/breed under and killed on the spot (after60 secondsof "due process" of course).

Since "the authorities" can't handle crime, then it's forced onto the citizen...and we need our tools to do so. Especially in places like Mayor Daley's criminalwasteland of Chicago.

-- John D.

imported post

It is curious how the court has ruled over the years that the Bill of Rights pertains to controls and protections against the federal government and does not address the states directly. But in reality, only one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights even mentions congress: the First Amendment.

This clearly means that the remainder of the amendments do, in fact, address the recognized rights of the people and their protection against any govenment; local, state, or federal. You have to wonder when these idiots are going to start understanding English and the intent of the Founders.

"[font="verdana,arial, helvetica,geneva"]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."

[/font]There is nothing whatsoever in the above sentence which would address the federal government in its protection of a most basic and fundamental right. Yes it does say that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But so are roads and food supplies and communication media. It clearly states that in order for a militia to exist TO secure the state, the People must have arms.

I think they were quite clear with their intent and they're laughing at us while we suffer the ignorance and arrogance of the anointed.

imported post

Matt Sundquist at SCOTUSblog's Monday round-up has link URL to a half dozen discussions of tomorrows case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/monday-round-up-21/#more-16899

At Lyle Denniston's ScotusWiki entry

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

is his discussion, many links to background information and links to news and blog coverage

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago#Links_and_Further_Information

imported post

IMO,the US Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence before that) was written on behalfof ALL the people, regardless of what state (or Colony) they lived in.

Consequently, I think it to be expected (and demanded as well) thatall Americans should have the same basic "unalienable" rights regardless of what state they live in. I don't see how some "Americans" can have some rights, but other "Americans" living in some other state may or may not have those same rights.Either we all are Americans or not. For example, re: the gun issue only, would I prefer to live in fairly pro-gun Texas (even thoughTexans are denied OC) or anti-gun repressive HawaiI? Texas, of course. But why should citizens of Hawaii -- part of the USA last time I heard -- not have the same basic gun freedoms Texas and a bunch of other states have? And why does Texas have something less in that regard than some other states?

If weARE all Americans,then we need to be on the same page re: something very basic and of ultimate importance: Our unalienable rights (enumeratedand unenumerated). All the other stuff -- "lesser rights and privileges," if you will -- can be inthe realm of and at the discretion of the states (States Rights). But there would be NO denying of or infringing upon any American citizen's basic rights by ANY state.

Otherwise, what's the point of having a "Union" of states when there is no common ground?Ifthere is no point to the "United States" concept, then all50 states may as well become independent self-governing entities andgo back to making their own money and such...in other words, we may as well go back to the days of the Colonies...or Republic (in the case of Texas) or Territorial status.

Maybe President Lincoln was right in wantingto "preverve the Union" back in 1861, yet maybe TODAY, that's not so important, especially if we are becoming Balkanized. But if we DO want to "preserve the Union," in a modern sense, thenwe need the same basic rights applying to ALL Americans, nothing less.

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

IMO,the US Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence before that) was written on behalfof ALL the people, regardless of what state (or Colony) they lived in.

Consequently, I think it to be expected (and demanded as well) thatall Americans should have the same basic "unalienable" rights regardless of what state they live in. I don't see how some "Americans" can have some rights, but other "Americans" living in some other state may or may not have those same rights.Either we all are Americans or not. For example, re: the gun issue only, would I prefer to live in fairly pro-gun Texas (even thoughTexans are denied OC) or anti-gun repressive HawaiI? Texas, of course. But why should citizens of Hawaii -- part of the USA last time I heard -- not have the same basic gun freedoms Texas and a bunch of other states have? And why does Texas have something less in that regard than some other states?

If weARE all Americans,then we need to be on the same page re: something very basic and of ultimate importance: Our unalienable rights (enumeratedand unenumerated). All the other stuff -- "lesser rights and privileges," if you will -- can be inthe realm of and at the discretion of the states (States Rights). But there would be NO denying of or infringing upon any American citizen's basic rights by ANY state.

Otherwise, what's the point of having a "Union" of states when there is no common ground?Ifthere is no point to the "United States" concept, then all50 states may as well become independent self-governing entities andgo back to making their own money and such...in other words, we may as well go back to the days of the Colonies...or Republic (in the case of Texas) or Territorial status.

Maybe President Lincoln was right in wantingto "preverve the Union" back in 1861, yet maybe TODAY, that's not so important, especially if we are becoming Balkanized. But if we DO want to "preserve the Union," in a modern sense, thenwe need the same basic rights applying to ALL Americans, nothing less.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

I will say that I am a firm and solid supporter of state's rights and view this fact as exhibited in the Tenth Amendment. This amendment is quite clear in its recognition or all other rights not specifically enumerated to be reserved by the states and the people respectively. At least, this is what we have been led to believe over the years.

But upon close examination of the Tenth Amendment, the word "right" or "rights" does not appear at all. What does appear and what this amendment is really all about is "power". This is what it says.

"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."

There is no mention of rights in this amendment. However, there most certainly is in the Ninth Amendment where it says;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


What this means is that the people hold other rights beyond those mentioned in the Constitution (actually the Bill of Rights since the Constitution does not address rights at all). It is a cement, if you will, for those rights which are mentioned and a warning to government that there are more - they are just not listed here at the present time.

So yes, states do have the "power" an authority to make laws in their own interests and for their own specific needs, as long as they do not supersede those basic, fundamental rights which our Bill of Rights recognizes and any other rights which We the People deem fundamental to our existence and liberty.

Pretty good stuff they did.

imported post

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. "Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?" he asked at a news conference in Washington.

Click to expand...

Considering that Daley is one of the biggest criminals in Chicago...Did we really expect him to say anything different? Hmmmm...."Guns and illegal weapons" weapons that are only illegal because morons like him have made them illegal...what an idiot!

imported post

No audio release on McDonald
Lyle Denniston | Monday, March 1st, 2010 4:02 pm The Supreme Court has refused a request by cable and other broadcast networks to release on Tuesday the audiotape of the Court’s hearing in the Second Amendment case, McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). The refusal was conveyed to the networks by the Court, but no document was released on it. The Court has released promptly the audiotape on only one case during recent months — the Citizens United v. FEC case, heard in September before the current Term opened. Under current policy, the written transcript of Tuesday’s argument will be released later in the day. The argument is scheduled for one hour, starting at 10 a.m.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

No audio release on McDonald
Lyle Denniston | Monday, March 1st, 2010 4:02 pm The Supreme Court has refused a request by cable and other broadcast networks to release on Tuesday the audiotape of the Court’s hearing in the Second Amendment case, McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). The refusal was conveyed to the networks by the Court, but no document was released on it. The Court has released promptly the audiotape on only one case during recent months — the Citizens United v. FEC case, heard in September before the current Term opened. Under current policy, the written transcript of Tuesday’s argument will be released later in the day. The argument is scheduled for one hour, starting at 10 a.m.

Click to expand...

Weird, they did release a tape of the Heller arguments. This one is every bit as important.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Weird, they did release a tape of the Heller arguments. This one is every bit as important.

Click to expand...

That must be part of the new "Transparency in Government" policy of the current administration.

How's that "Hopey-Changey" think working out for ya, America?...

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

TFred wrote:

Weird, they did release a tape of the Heller arguments. This one is every bit as important.

Click to expand...

That must be part of the new "Transparency in Government" policy of the current administration.

How's that "Hopey-Changey" think working out for ya, America?...

Click to expand...

What I don't know is whether or not it was a special case to release the Heller tapes.

Other than Sotomayor, there haven't been any changes since Heller, so I don't know why they would not release this one too. Sotomayor's vote wouldn't be any different than Souters, I wouldn't think.

TFred

imported post

I am hoping for, and will be satisfied with, real time commentary by an Akin Gump (that sponsors SCOTUSblog) attorney. That was provided during Heller.

imported post

Go Gura, Go!!!

imported post

Wow. I just skimmed through the transcript of todays testimonies in "McDonald", and that is an incredibly rude bunch of judges. The are constantly interrupting the presenters mid-sentence, breaking into their presentations mid-idea, and just generally some pretty bad conversationalists...

I mean, I know we have an "adverserial' judicial system, but it seems like the SC judges aren't nearly as concerned with actually JUDGING this case as they are with trying to somehow not step on the toes of previous Judges or over-ruling long-standing case law--EVEN when they admit that some of these long-standing cases are bad rulings and have set bad precedent. The amount of respect they have for prior rulings borders on religious zealotry, even when they admit some of these old rulings are in error.

Alan Gura is a better man than I. Were I in his shoes, I would have closed my briefcase about 3 pages into my presentation, calmly asked the Justices if they were going to continue to interrupt me, and then if they did so, I would have just handed my notes to the clerk, told them that I would return to the Court OF THE PEOPLE when they decided to use some freaking manners, and walked out...

The implications of a positive ruling in McDonald are FAR-RANGING, ad I think that people on both sides are starting to grasp that. This case has the potential to effect state power and authority on issues as far ranging as Corporate Law, the privitization of Law Enforcement, and even the other amendments. Combined with the recent ruling about the "personhood" of corporation with regards to 1A protection, the cases being ruled on by the SCOTUS suring this session potentially could create an atmosphere of TREMENDOUS liberty for individuals and corporations, rein in State and Local governments to force them to function within the bounds of the US Constitution.

At the same, a positive McDonald ruling could create an atmosphere of perceived "tacit consent" of the people (by the Federal Government) that increased Federal Power is needed, warranted, and in fact mandated by The People. In other words, by forcing our State and Local government to "toe the Constitutional Line' we may in fact be opening a back door to further Federal heavy-handedness, intrusion, and a more concerted concentration of power.

This sword cuts both ways, and I think the SCOTUS has inklings of that. I think that the people arguing pro and con know that. I think the VAST majority of Citizens don't have a clue as to what a positive McDonald ruling may ultimately mean, and are only seeing it as a "one trick pony" for gun rights, when in fact, this case has the potential to throw open the gates of the whole freaking circus.

McDonald has some interesting (and perplexing) far-reaching implications, and I think once we win this one, it's going to take a decade or more to REALLY understand what it's deeper ramifications are...