Justices signal end to Chicago ban on handguns

[Malsua 1,422]

The magic 8 ball says "Signs point to yes"

 

---------

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010 ... today.html

 

Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments today they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations.

 

Since 1982, Chicago has outlawed hand guns in the city, even for law-abiding residents who sought to keep one at home. That ordinance was challenged by several city residents who said it violated their rights "to keep and bear arms" under the 2nd Amendment.

 

The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Did the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government's ability to regulate guns and state militias, or did it also give citizens a right to challenge state and local restrictions on guns?

 

All signs today were that five justices saw the right to "bear arms" as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of "fundamental character," like the right to freedom of speech. "If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong," Kennedy said, referring to the decision two years ago that struck down the hand-gun ban in the District of Columbia. Kennedy was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an "extremely important" right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in its decision two years ago. The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he had been a steady advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

 

A ruling striking down the Chicago hand-gun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.

 

Chief Justice Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.

 

A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years year, gun restrictions "have been a state and local decision," said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set "reasonable regulations of firearms," he added, noting Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.

 

But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.

 

At one point during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago homeowners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not "a right to parade around the street with a gun," Stevens said.

 

But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association said the court should not adopt a "watered down version" of the 2nd Amendment.

 

It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.

 

--David G. Savage

[BCeagle 12]

Chief Justice Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. "We haven't said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment," Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a "concealed" weapon.

 

Open carry in NJ? I'll take it.

[kenw 293]

I'm hoping this works out well, but the cynic in me has a bad feeling about this in the long term.

[NJ609 22]

Not all that encouraging for a broader ruling, but not a bad sign for some relief:

 

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/in-chicago-gun-case-supreme-court-sounds-note-of-caution.html

 

March 02, 2010

In Chicago Gun Case, Supreme Court Sounds Note of Caution

Oral argument in the crucial Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago has just ended at the Supreme Court, and one thing appears clear: the justices are not yet ready to open what seems to them to be a can of worms by invoking the "privileges or immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the way to apply the right to bear arms to states and localities. The more traditional route of the "due process" clause seems almost certain to be Court's chosen path.

 

Alan Gura, who was arguing for the "privileges or immunities" route, ran into skepticism almost from the moment he began, when Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said Gura had a "heavy burden" because his approach entailed striking down the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia piled on by asking Gura why he'd take this more difficult path "unless you're bucking for some place on a law school faculty." The privileges or immunities clause, Scalia added sarcastically, has become the "darling of the professoriate." Justice Stephen Breyer also seemed to opt for caution, asking Gura questions about the implications of using a new part of the Constitution to apply the Second Amendment to states.

 

The justices seemed almost to sigh in relief when former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the National Rifle Association on the same side as Gura, rose to reassure the justices that using the due process clause was a "remarkably straightforward" way to apply the Second Amendment that would not involve upsetting precedent.

 

More on the argument and other Supreme Court action here and at nlj.com later today.

 

[mipafox 438]

This sounds really bad. Thank goodness many states have RKBA in their Constitutions. But, the way this is going, the feds may decide to pass their own laws regulating the "bear" part.

[NJ609 22]

Don't panic. Nobody knows what is going to happen till the decision is put out in a few months. That's how the SCOTUS rolls.....

[mipafox 438]

I'm worried about a decision in favor of the plaintiff with lots of BS about how states can regulate bearing arms as long as they allow some form or restricted ownership options.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

I'm worried about a decision in favor of the plaintiff with lots of BS about how states can regulate bearing arms as long as they allow some form or restricted ownership options.

Not as long as these words are honored.

 

shall not be infringed

 

 

to break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of; violate

Etymology: L infringere, to break off, break, impair, violate < in-, in + frangere, to break

[NJ609 22]

Heller said reasonable restrictions were ok. We do NOT know what that means yet as there are lawsuits against DC's current "reasonable restrictions" post Heller.

 

Perhaps it would be wise to view this case as being one small victory along a chain of things we all wish for through future cases.

 

That way if they go the whole shabang we're all happily surprised. But smart money seems to be pointing towards there being a similar ruling with this case as well.

 

Remember that ANY victory is good for our cause. "Our cause" being that of a free, law abiding citizen of the United States.

[SpecOps2087 3]

I think this is a win.

 

A) If you've read past SCOTUS briefs, they are always in this fromat of bouncing ideas off of the lawyers to indirectly argue with each other. They also have to appear unbias agaisnt either side so you must expect some harsh questions.

 

B) Indirectly, both "keep" and "bear" arms are in the spot light.We might not get concealed, but open carry is possible and I guarentee with enough OC, NJ will fold and have CCW soon enough.

 

C) Some restrictions ARE perfectly fine...think about it, do you want felons owning guns? mentally challenged people? 10 year olds? etc? Reasonable restrictions are perfectly fine. I guarentee "justification" will not be reasonable when the answer has to be politically powerful / carrying lots of money / best buddies with the judge as it is currently in NJ.

 

 

 

Just have to give this stuff some time. This is a MAJOR step in the right direction and opens up a whole can of worms against the anti's.

[NJ609 22]

Just have to give this stuff some time. This is a MAJOR step in the right direction and opens up a whole can of worms against the anti's.

 

Very VERY well said.

[Guest]

I think this is a win.

 

A) If you've read past SCOTUS briefs, they are always in this fromat of bouncing ideas off of the lawyers to indirectly argue with each other. They also have to appear unbias agaisnt either side so you must expect some harsh questions.

 

B) Indirectly, both "keep" and "bear" arms are in the spot light.We might not get concealed, but open carry is possible and I guarentee with enough OC, NJ will fold and have CCW soon enough.

 

C) Some restrictions ARE perfectly fine...think about it, do you want felons owning guns? mentally challenged people? 10 year olds? etc? Reasonable restrictions are perfectly fine. I guarentee "justification" will not be reasonable when the answer has to be politically powerful / carrying lots of money / best buddies with the judge as it is currently in NJ.

 

 

 

Just have to give this stuff some time. This is a MAJOR step in the right direction and opens up a whole can of worms against the anti's.

 

 

i have had this long term argument with many.. the problem is the word "reasonable" is subjective..

 

reasonable to you or i (the active gun enthusiast)

"demonstration of safe handling of a firearm and the ability to qualify in a way similar to anyone carrying a firearm does for work... etc.. whatever"

 

reasonable to your average NJ politician

"pays this fee to acquire this certification, only carrying approved ammunition that the state has deemed "safe"... only carrying in this certain type of holster... and so on and so on.."

 

the problem with reasonable is its vague.. TOO vague.. as it empowers the government to slowly erode your rights..

 

look im ALL for not letting some mentally unstable person run down the street with a gun.. im all for not allowing some 7 year old to take his dads pistol to the local playground.. but lets face reality.. gun regulation on a huge national level is relatively new to our nation.. and prior to these types of rules its not like we had mass chaos and murder.. see the problem is we as a society like to demonize inanimate objects..

 

guns are not something that will hurt you without ill intent or misuse in handling.. so instead of making laws that address that, we make simply owning the item to be SUCH a hassle that people avoid it.. lots of things present potential to hurt and or injure others.. but we dont regulate the hell out of them.. household cleaners can kill a child.. it is TOTALLY reasonable to say "door to door inspections to be sure chemicals are locked up and away from children WILL reduce children getting sick and or dying" BUT the actual action of doing that door to door thing is WRONG on SO many levels..

[galapoola 102]

Don't panic. Nobody knows what is going to happen till the decision is put out in a few months. That's how the SCOTUS rolls.....

I'd have to agree, the oral arguments are minuscule compared to what goes on during the debating, voting and the long process of writing the opinions. Not to mention the amount of time the justices read and collate documents.

I listened to the full oral argument for Heller v. DC the other day and I was amazed at how attorneys were constantly interrupted, sometimes not even able to finish a thought. I don't believe it's for show but I'm certain it's so the justices can home in on their sticking points or things they want to hear first hand from the lawyers. If I was to go by the oral for Heller I'd say that Gura was not necessarily the winner.

IMHO it'll probably go 5-4 for some sort of incorporation. They'd have to go back on Heller to vote otherwise. Here's a good read on today's oral:

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

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

This sounds really bad. Thank goodness many states have RKBA in their Constitutions. But, the way this is going, the feds may decide to pass their own laws regulating the "bear" part.

 

I don't think a 2A equivalent in a State constitution means a hill of beans.

 

Ask the people of Illinois, see how their 2A is working out for 'em.

 

See section 22: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

[unclenunzie 3]

This sounds really bad. Thank goodness many states have RKBA in their Constitutions. But, the way this is going, the feds may decide to pass their own laws regulating the "bear" part.

 

I don't think a 2A equivalent in a State constitution means a hill of beans.

 

Ask the people of Illinois, see how their 2A is working out for 'em.

 

See section 22: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

 

Can't see how the IL right to arms could possibly support no carry (CCW). Do they have open carry? If not, does the IL supreme court do it's job?

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

does the IL supreme court do it's job?

 

Let's see, gun ban in Chicago....I'd say no.

[unclenunzie 3]

does the IL supreme court do it's job?

 

Let's see, gun ban in Chicago....I'd say no.

 

Point taken... It is disturbing to come to the realization that so blatant and clear a violation of a state's constitution could be allowed to stand. Yet another excellent example of why the RKBA is at the root of a free society.

 

I'm gonna have to read up on this to try and wrap my brain around it. I hope I don't injure myself.

 

unclenunzie

[djg0770 481]

It seems as though many of us believe that the laws should be followed, should be clear, and should not be open for interpretation. In many cases however, it appears as if the judicial branches of our governments (local, state, federal) are governed more by their own personal opinions and political leanings rather than being governed by the letter of the law.

 

This country has become so unrecognizable in comparison to the original intent of our founders.

[KpdPipes 388]

does the IL supreme court do it's job?

 

Let's see, gun ban in Chicago....I'd say no.

 

 

Which is Why McDonald had to go to SCOTUS.

[GoNRA 12]

with all this going on, I hope christie elects 3 constitutionalist to the NJ Supreme Court. He is going to be answering questions tonight at 7:00 pm on 101.5. phone number to radio station is 1800-283-1015 . So if someone could ask him that question that would be great..

 

Has he decided who he will appoint to the NJ Supreme Court?

 

hopefully the guy is popular enough where we can look up who he will appoint to see where he stands on issues.

[KpdPipes 388]

with all this going on, I hope christie elects 3 constitutionalist to the NJ Supreme Court. He is going to be answering questions tonight at 7:00 pm on 101.5. phone number to radio station is 1800-283-1015 . So if someone could ask him that question that would be great..

 

Has he decided who he will appoint to the NJ Supreme Court?

 

hopefully the guy is popular enough where we can look up who he will appoint to see where he stands on issues.

 

 

You DID see who he appointed as AG, right???

[BCeagle 12]

Interesting worry about open carry by Chicago Attorney:

MR. FELDMAN:

But even more than that, Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -- the word "bear," "to keep and bear arms" -- to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello much later. And to carry -- generally to carry.

Many -- there is a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry, as the Court did recognize in Heller, but of ban -- of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. Again, generally, it's someplace that is -- it has a particular problem; it's a city or something like that.

 

Who decides the city is big enough anyway? Crooks wont open carry, they dont even get legal guns.

[njpilot 671]

with all this going on, I hope christie elects 3 constitutionalist to the NJ Supreme Court. He is going to be answering questions tonight at 7:00 pm on 101.5. phone number to radio station is 1800-283-1015 . So if someone could ask him that question that would be great..

 

Has he decided who he will appoint to the NJ Supreme Court?

 

hopefully the guy is popular enough where we can look up who he will appoint to see where he stands on issues.

 

 

You DID see who he appointed as AG, right???

 

He also has to get them confirmed in a very liberal state legislature which may make him go more moderate in his choices. I hope not, but who knows where he really stands.

[GoNRA 12]

with all this going on, I hope christie elects 3 constitutionalist to the NJ Supreme Court. He is going to be answering questions tonight at 7:00 pm on 101.5. phone number to radio station is 1800-283-1015 . So if someone could ask him that question that would be great..

 

Has he decided who he will appoint to the NJ Supreme Court?

 

hopefully the guy is popular enough where we can look up who he will appoint to see where he stands on issues.

 

 

You DID see who he appointed as AG, right???

 

He also has to get them confirmed in a very liberal state legislature which may make him go more moderate in his choices. I hope not, but who knows where he really stands.

 

 

Man, I hope you and Kdp are wrong... lol, yeah I seen who he appointed as AG which I felt he did just to gain some pull with the legislatures which seemed to work because they are somewhat going along with him..

[KpdPipes 388]

 

Man, I hope you and Kdp are wrong... lol, yeah I seen who he appointed as AG which I felt he did just to gain some pull with the legislatures which seemed to work because they are somewhat going along with him..

 

Dude, i KNOW Paula Dow, the only thing she hates more than white cops is people with guns. While Christie is a Republican, AT BEST he is Neutral but from what i know of him he leans a tad to port on the gun issue...I DONT COUNT HIM AS A FRIEND to us (Gun owners)..at best he's political Switzerland...what i think he realizes is that NJ has MUCH more pressing problems than to dick around with more gun control. I can live with neutral. I've said it before and i'll say it again.

YES McDonald will be ruled in Favor, incorporating the 2nd ammendment. The Net result for us will be BUPKUS. Even if they ruled under Priveledges and Immunities (Alan Gura's argument) it would take a decade of Lawsuits for NJ to roll over and give up Gun Control. As it is P&I was rejected OUTRIGHT. McDonald will be won under Due Process. AT BEST we may see standardization for permit issuance, and the time limits adhered to finally. We MAY see 2C:39 rewritten so that is is more clear in scope. but that is IT. Even Roberts stated in Heller that "Reasonable Restrictions" are allowable...without ever actually defining what is "Reasonable" It is going to take money and time to get it done here. Im NOT Trying to be Pessimistic, only REALISTIC. WAY too many people ran around crying that Heller was going to repeal every gun law in existance back to NFA 34..and anyone who disagreed was labeled everything from Statist thug to Brady-mole (and no, im not kidding). YES we weill benefit here from the McDonald win..but it wont be soon, or as much as everyine is hoping for.

[GoNRA 12]

 

Man, I hope you and Kdp are wrong... lol, yeah I seen who he appointed as AG which I felt he did just to gain some pull with the legislatures which seemed to work because they are somewhat going along with him..

 

Dude, i KNOW Paula Dow, the only thing she hates more than white cops is people with guns. While Christie is a Republican, AT BEST he is Neutral but from what i know of him he leans a tad to port on the gun issue...I DONT COUNT HIM AS A FRIEND to us (Gun owners)..at best he's political Switzerland...what i think he realizes is that NJ has MUCH more pressing problems than to dick around with more gun control. I can live with neutral. I've said it before and i'll say it again.

YES McDonald will be ruled in Favor, incorporating the 2nd ammendment. The Net result for us will be BUPKUS. Even if they ruled under Priveledges and Immunities (Alan Gura's argument) it would take a decade of Lawsuits for NJ to roll over and give up Gun Control. As it is P&I was rejected OUTRIGHT. McDonald will be won under Due Process. AT BEST we may see standardization for permit issuance, and the time limits adhered to finally. We MAY see 2C:39 rewritten so that is is more clear in scope. but that is IT. Even Roberts stated in Heller that "Reasonable Restrictions" are allowable...without ever actually defining what is "Reasonable" It is going to take money and time to get it done here. Im NOT Trying to be Pessimistic, only REALISTIC. WAY too many people ran around crying that Heller was going to repeal every gun law in existance back to NFA 34..and anyone who disagreed was labeled everything from Statist thug to Brady-mole (and no, im not kidding). YES we weill benefit here from the McDonald win..but it wont be soon, or as much as everyine is hoping for.

 

Do you think this will open up the locked floodgates and let the NRA in to do business on our behalf?

[KpdPipes 388]

Do you think this will open up the locked floodgates and let the NRA in to do business on our behalf?

 

 

hard to tell..NRA has been conspiciously absent in NJ in the past..oh they go through the motions and mouth plattitudes, but they've never really dug in and FOUGHT for us here. Maybe with a Due Process we chan shake some money from NRA/ILA that NJ members have donated in the past to get things done here.

[71ragtopgoat 23]

NRA is not even the lead in the Chicago case. I'll admit being new to the NRA but I see them more as lobbyists then litigants. So I think it will take another organization other then the NRA to fight it out here in the peoples republic.

[KpdPipes 388]

NRA is not even the lead in the Chicago case. I'll admit being new to the NRA but I see them more as lobbyists then litigants. So I think it will take another organization other then the NRA to fight it out here in the peoples republic.

 

 

They are now actually. Gura's case was built in Privledges and immunities, NRA's concurrent argument was based on Due Process..which i founf typical of them...It had the least amount of Risk. IMO if NRA HAD NOT filed their own brief using Due Process, and Left +Gura Alone, Privledges and immunities would NOT have been immediately dismissed. By offering SCOTUS the choice of paths, they took the one that would cause the least upset when it comes to precedence and not overturn the Slaughterhouse decisions.

[joejaxx 38]

Do you think this will open up the locked floodgates and let the NRA in to do business on our behalf?

 

 

hard to tell..NRA has been conspiciously absent in NJ in the past..oh they go through the motions and mouth plattitudes, but they've never really dug in and FOUGHT for us here. Maybe with a Due Process we chan shake some money from NRA/ILA that NJ members have donated in the past to get things done here.

 

I think this is because NJ does not have a 2nd ammendment "copy" in the state constitution.