NRA appeals handgun ban to Supreme Court

[gene]

That was quick!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31108146/

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area, setting the stage for another high court battle over Second Amendment protections for gun owners.

The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's gun rights decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia applies as well to local and state laws.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes almost immediately after a federal appeals court in Chicago said Tuesday that it is bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions which held the Second Amendment applies only to federal laws. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of an appeals court 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 framers of the Constitution intended "to protect the right to keep and bear arms and other rights from state infringement," the NRA said in a filing made available at the court Thursday.

One federal appeals panel, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, has ruled that the Second Amendment does apply broadly. That court, however, is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between Alameda County and gun show promoters.

In the case now pending at the Supreme Court, 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 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.

Chicago officials said they were pleased with the appeals court ruling and would defend the local laws in front of the Supreme Court, if the justices agree to hear the NRA's case.

Any decision about that probably won't come earlier than late September.

The case is National Rifle Association v. Chicago, 08-1497.

 

[atmay]

Huh? Federalism is an older idea than bearing arms?

 

[Gonzo]

Huh? Federalism is an older idea than bearing arms?

Yes. That's why there are cave drawings of federalisms. And none of weapons.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Yes. That's why there are cave drawings of federalisms. And none of weapons.

This made me laugh out loud.

 

[Pete85]

I realize that any ruling on this is probably 6~12 months away, but if the SCOTUS rules in our favor, would this mean MA's storage laws as they exist now are unconstitutional? I have no plans to keep any gun not under my control outside my safe, but this could make it legal to keep a shotgun next to the bed (at least while you're home).

Anyway, Thanks NRA. Keep up the good fight.

 

[BOBKATT]

Judge Frank Easterbrook 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."Yes. That's why there are cave drawings of federalisms. And none of weapons.

Right. So where does a Federal Assault weapon ban fit into that?

 

[Gonzo]

Right. So where does a Federal Assault weapon ban fit into that?

It's classic doublespeak.

 

[atmay]

Yes. That's why there are cave drawings of federalisms. And none of weapons.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit confuzzled, I must admit.

 

[Gadsden]

I wish lawmakers (and many citizens) would realize that the US Constitution applies to the entire country, not just where they want it to.

I find it amazing how state and local governments think they can limit or "pick and choose" the rights in The Constitution they wish to honor. The Bill of Rights was put in place to guarantee certain rights could not be limited (even by "reasonable limits"), and that because a right was not mentioned does not mean it does not exist. If states applied the same logic to other rights we could expect the following variation in laws from one state to another:

* Freedom of religion, as long as it is Methodist
* Ownership of a gun, but only a Red Rider BB Gun.
* Forced housing of National Guard, but not Active-duty military
* Ownership of slaves, but only if they are 1/4 or more Native American
* Requirement for a permit to protest, blog, or run a web forum
* Etc, etc.

The fact that state and local governments are forcing this debate is proof that lawmakers need to be discarded like dirty diapers.. and for the same reason!

 

[LoginName]

In a way, I'm glad our side lost.

If we prevailed, there would be the (slim), chance that Shitcago/Daley might not appeal due to pressure from the anti's/Bradys (they had pleaded with DC/Fenty not to proceed with their appeal).

I'd much rather see the Chicago case go forward over the US 9th Nordyke or 2nd NY nunchuka decisions.

Now it's a near certainty that the SCOTUS will take up the case for incorporation.

 

[Jose]

I bet SCOTUS incorporates. Then watch the antis be hit with massive bouts of diahrreah.

 

[pdm]

I bet SCOTUS incorporates. Then watch the antis be hit with massive bouts of diahrreah.

All depends on Kennedy, I think.

 

[Garys]

All depends on Kennedy, I think.

Most likely as he was the deciding vote on Heller. I'm not as optimistic as Jose, but logic (not necessarily the law) would dictate that all of the Bill of Rights would be incorporated.

 

[pdm]

Most likely as he was the deciding vote on Heller. I'm not as optimistic as Jose, but logic (not necessarily the law) would dictate that all of the Bill of Rights would be incorporated.

Excepting the ninth and tenth, I would think.

 

[gene]

I wish lawmakers (and many citizens) would realize that the US Constitution applies to the entire country, not just where they want it to.

I find it amazing how state and local governments think they can limit or "pick and choose" the rights in The Constitution they wish to honor. The Bill of Rights was put in place to guarantee certain rights could not be limited (even by "reasonable limits"), and that because a right was not mentioned does not mean it does not exist. If states applied the same logic to other rights we could expect the following variation in laws from one state to another:

* Freedom of religion, as long as it is Methodist
* Ownership of a gun, but only a Red Rider BB Gun.
* Forced housing of National Guard, but not Active-duty military
* Ownership of slaves, but only if they are 1/4 or more Native American
* Requirement for a permit to protest, blog, or run a web forum
* Etc, etc.

The fact that state and local governments are forcing this debate is proof that lawmakers need to be discarded like dirty diapers.. and for the same reason!

I am fairly certain the normal person would consider the right to self defense is logical beyond the states boundaries and dates well back to early man with little change except for the type of weaponology. I feel sad for a supreme court that cannot fathom why it's normal for a bug or animal to want to defend itself when placed in harms way and not a man or woman. My gut feeling is that they may allow some restrictions but the arguments given by these justices just doesn't wash. Apparently money isn't as tight with the states to defend these erronious laws as they would have us believe![sad2]

 

[cekim]

All depends on Kennedy, I think.

At this point, having incorporated everything around it, it would stick out like a sore thumb...

Particularly as other incorporated items specifically stated their intent to limit "Congress" and say nothing about the states, but that wasn't a hurdle for those amendments...

2A says "shall not be infringed". Doesn't say "Congress shall make no law infringing". It says "shall not be infringed" and the states ratified it...

I have a bottle of tums ready to read the dissent on this one assuming its another 5:4 - the logic, I suspect will again show their willingness to twist, history, language, truth and sanity to accomplish their goal of stripping people of their rights...

 

[pdm]

At this point, having incorporated everything around it, it would stick out like a sore thumb...

You say that as if it was a bug, not a feature.

Particularly as other incorporated items specifically stated their intent to limit "Congress" and say nothing about the states, but that wasn't a hurdle for those amendments...

2A says "shall not be infringed". Doesn't say "Congress shall make no law infringing". It says "shall not be infringed" and the states ratified it...

I have a bottle of tums ready to read the dissent on this one assuming its another 5:4 - the logic, I suspect will again show their willingness to twist, history, language, truth and sanity to accomplish their goal of stripping people of their rights...

Make that a bottle of Tums with a JD chaser and I like where your head's at.

 

[cekim]

You say that as if it was a bug, not a feature.

 

[RKG]

In a way, I'm glad our side lost.

If we prevailed, there would be the (slim), chance that Shitcago/Daley might not appeal due to pressure from the anti's/Bradys (they had pleaded with DC/Fenty not to proceed with their appeal).

I'd much rather see the Chicago case go forward over the US 9th Nordyke or 2nd NY nunchuka decisions.

Now it's a near certainty that the SCOTUS will take up the case for incorporation.

A grant of certiorari is never a "near certainty."

For those who may be interested: one cannot "appeal" a case to the Supreme Court, in the sense of filing a paper that triggers an automatic right to review. All review in the Supreme Court is by a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is in essence a request that the Court exercise its discretion to take the case up for review on its merits. The Court gets something like 6,000 to 10,000 cert. petitions a year and grants something like 40-60 of them. On numbers alone, a cert. petition is a crap shoot.

 

[LoginName]

A grant of certiorari is never a "near certainty."

For those who may be interested: one cannot "appeal" a case to the Supreme Court, in the sense of filing a paper that triggers an automatic right to review. All review in the Supreme Court is by a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is in essence a request that the Court exercise its discretion to take the case up for review on its merits. The Court gets something like 6,000 to 10,000 cert. petitions a year and grants something like 40-60 of them. On numbers alone, a cert. petition is a crap shoot.

I agree, however I remain overly optimistic . That's why I posted a "near certainty" as opposed to a certainty.

Anything could possibly go wrong for us, but given the circumstances I believe the odds are very much in our favor. If not... then this is our last hope/option left. It's doubtful we'll ever have another opportunity like this again in our lifetimes.

On a side note... the Brady Campaign website is noticeably silent about this case. I wonder why that is?

 

[ShadeWPI]

Here's the argument I like to use:

Why, if states and local governments are allowed to apply local rule with "reasonable restrictions" to one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, are they not allowed to do so for all??

Wouldn't it be reasonable to require a license for the practice of free speech? Shouldn't we require people to take a manditory English test and apply to their local politian for a license?

Shouldn't State and Local governments have the authority to say, limit search and seizer restrictions to adapt to their "local situation"? Certainly there is more need for searches in big cities where more crime occurs than in the country.

Maybe local towns should be allowed to ignore amendments giving Blacks and Woman the right to vote? If it's the will of the people, shouldn't they be allowed to ignore these Constitutional Rights???

The arguments used by the anti-gun establishment to limit the impact of the 2nd Amendment would never even be considered on other articles of the bill of rights. Heck, the same people who argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to all citizens of the US also argue that Due Process (another Constitutional Right) applies to Non-US citizens and even foreign nationals illegally living in the United State.