Supreme Court to Hear Local Gun Laws Suit

(AP)  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 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.

[hungry1968-16]

by OregonJames September 30, 2009 7:11 PM EDT

Just imagine if you will an earthquake in southern California similar to the 8.0 quake that hit Somoa yesterday. Consider the thousands of killed and hurt, the billions in damage, and a giant metropolis without electricity or water. Anarchy would begin before the ground quit shaking. Looting and killing would be common. Fire, police, and emergency services would be of little value to those under attack or in need of protection. If the outages lasted a couple of weeks people would begin killing each other for food, rather than for entertainment.







Oh please.

Numerous earthquakes have hit this country, as have hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, etc, etc.

And with the exception of the INCREDIBLY POOR response to hurricane Katrina from the Bush administration, nothing like you are suggesting has ever taken place.

Save your fear mongering, coward.

No one is biting.

[mav547166]

Yeah, everybody listen to the liberal in the gated community.

[hungry1968-16]

by mecanik-2009 September 30, 2009 7:12 PM EDT
"I'm simply stating that it is THEIR right to pass laws for THEIR city, regarding THEIR citizens."


I take it they're not citizens of the United States anymore if they live in that city.







You might want to take a look at the definition of "federalism".

You also might want to read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, as you've apparently never even HEARD of it.

[hungry1968-16]

by dib-e September 30, 2009 6:52 PM EDT

My point is simply that our founding fathers recognized how government can have interests other than the security of the individual in mind, and that a firearm should be available to the individual to protect their liberty.







That absolutely IS NOT why the founding fathers wrote the second amendment the way they did. It wasn't so that you could cause an insurrection, or over throw the government if you didn't like the way things were going, and our founding fathers also presided over one of the weakest and smallest militaries in the world (at the time). I'm sure that "Martial Law" never once crossed their mind when they wrote it. Our founders copied the gun rights laws of England as our own, with the exception that they didn't REQUIRE anyone to own them, like England did for it's citizens (at the time):


"The concept of a universal militia originated in England. The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king?s peace and assist in the suppression of riots."



At the time of our founding, we didn't really have an army or a navy, and if not for the French assisting our forefathers, we'd still be hailing the King of England.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

"Until the Constitutional Convention, the military presence in what became known as the United States was organized by each U.S. state as a voluntary or conscripted militia. Since 1789, the United States Constitution has provided authority for the Congress to levy taxes and to raise a navy and national militia. Federal legislation eventually led to the modern nationalized system of military in the country. Historically, the amount of money the U.S. government spends on the military has often been a politically contentious issue."

[dib-e]

Actually, I think you are completely wrong there bud. The founding fathers universally understood that government could be tyrannical and the constitution and bill of rights that they authored was to prevent such a government from arising here. I leave you with some quotes from a few of those very wise men:

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
-Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
-James Madison

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison

[hungry1968-16]

by dib-e September 30, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
Yes, I am crazy because I am able to follow human history. I stated I didn't think it was likely (in my lifetime). But focus on what makes your point.

There are no bad people in Chicago that could do you harm with a firearm illegally, so be sure to keep them out of the hands of those people that follow the law. Makes sense to me.







I don't know WHAT the law in Chicago states.

I'm simply stating that it is THEIR right to pass laws for THEIR city, regarding THEIR citizens.

The Tenth Amendment guarantees rights to the states, to govern THEIR STATES as they see fit, with no interference from the federal government, unless that law contradicts federal law or the constitution.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms FOR MILITIA PURPOSES ONLY. That's why it SPECIFICALLY starts with: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The security of our free state DOES NOT hinge on a "well regulated militia" like it did in 1787 when the US Constitution was written, meaning that the Second Amendment no longer applies, and the Tenth Amendment is the section of the constitution that should be applied in this case.

[dib-e]

The Supreme Court did not agree with your assessment with the right to bear arms being applicable to militia purposes only when considering the facts presented. I don't see it changing just because you are saying it.

My point is simply that our founding fathers recognized how government can have interests other than the security of the individual in mind, and that a firearm should be available to the individual to protect their liberty. You choose to believe that it could never happen here. I tend to wonder how many other civilizations have thought the same thing before coming to an abrupt end. Yes, times have changed, weapons have become more sophisticated, but human nature has not.

You don't have to wonder if I own firearms. I am not so concerned that the government might send the National Guard afer me nor that I will have to take up arms against the government - I am more concerned that events beyond our goverment's control will create a condition where law does not apply, and then a firearm will be a necessity. I hope it doesn't happen, but if you were paying any attention at all to what happened in Louisiana in 2005, it's not too hard to consider the possibility.

So think what you want...our government is perfect, our elected officials would never let us be harmed. Hope it works out for you. We obviously disagree. Don't label me blue or red - I am human, I live in a country with certain freedoms, and I want to keep those freedoms. I don't think that a government is there to provide things for me that I would not try to provide for myself.

[hungry1968-16]

by dib-e September 30, 2009 4:41 PM EDT

Now for the "citizen militia"...how can you say it is obsolete? Should another country attempt to invade us you will see how untrue this is. Is that likely? I don't think so, but history has borne out what can happen when a government goes unchecked.
You honestly think it's the government's responsibility to protect you eh? You may also think that police are there to protect you too. That is a laugh. You get what you deserve when you leave your safety up to others.







Who do you think is going to try and invade the US?

Iran?

North Korea?



And you think the invasion is going to be successful, because the city of Chicago wants to regulate guns inside it's city limits?!?





Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

[dib-e]

Yes, I am crazy because I am able to follow human history. I stated I didn't think it was likely (in my lifetime). But focus on what makes your point.

There are no bad people in Chicago that could do you harm with a firearm illegally, so be sure to keep them out of the hands of those people that follow the law. Makes sense to me.

[hungry1968-16]

by armedwoman September 30, 2009 4:43 PM EDT
In my opinion you are out of your ever loving mind. When we as lawabiding citizens no longer have the right to bear arms, God help us all. Where do you live in lala land? In my neighborhood the burglars would be coming in with you at home if they thought you could not protect yourself. We need a way to protect ourselves. When we are gone the guns are locked away in a safe they cannot break into, so they cannot get them to use on someone. I am not going to give up my gun, and will die defending my right to have one.







ROFL!!!

Do you have a big, flashing neon sign on your house: "Burglars better stay away - I have guns!!"

What a joke!!

[hungry1968-16]

by gunownerdan September 30, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
Try again.

(b) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the UNORGANIZED MILITIA, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -- Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.







Try AGAIN:

Who is the unorganized militia?

They are the shopkeepers, ranchers, farmers, etc, etc that George Washington assembled to fight the British.

They were called to arms, did their duty, and went back to their NON-MILITARY lives when the Revolutionary War was over.

You're grasping at straws by reaching into the US Code, that was written just after the Revolutionary War ended.

We DO NOT have a "militia" anymore, protecting out nation and our liberties and freedoms.

For that reason, the Second Amendment is obsolete.

It now falls to the Tenth Amendment to allow the states to pass their own laws regarding the matter.

[gunownerdan]

George Washington certainly didn't use the First Amendment right to free speech to defeat the British.

[gunownerdan]

more guns = less crime

According to the FBI, today murder and violent crime is the lowest it has been in decades while Americans have been purchasing more guns and ammo than they ever did before.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims!

[hungry1968-16]

by dib-e September 30, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
Hate to tell ya, but the "citizen militia" hasn't been replaced. We are all a part of it. It just feels like it doesn't exist because you are enjoying your freedom now. The government controls our full time military, and it could very quickly be used against the populace. Do I expect that? No, but when the constitution was written, the 2nd amendment was penned to ensure that if it did, individuals could protect their liberty with arms. Remember, a twist on one of Thomas Jefferson's many witty musings about government - A government big enough to give you security is surely big enough to take it away.







George Washington didn't have a full time, professional military at his disposal to fight the British.

He had a rag tag bunch of farmers, ranchers, shop keepers, etc, etc. They were citizens, called to arms, to defend their nation.

We do not have a "citizen militia" anymore. It was replaced by the National Guard in 1903, and it was obsolete long before that, with the creation of our full time professional military - Army, Navy, etc.

You're grasping at straws.

[gunownerdan]

Try again.

(b) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the UNORGANIZED MILITIA, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -- Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

[dib-e]

Prior to the founding of our nation, George Washgington didn't have a government. The British were the ones running what semblance of a government there was. Again, the 2nd amendment was put in place because the farmers, ranchers, shop keepers, etc., etc., were not forgotten - these are the same ordinary people that were considered when it was put in place as to be afforded the ability to do it all again if necessary. Though I know you mean to contradict me, your first two statements support my position. Now for the "citizen militia"...how can you say it is obsolete? Should another country attempt to invade us you will see how untrue this is. Is that likely? I don't think so, but history has borne out what can happen when a government goes unchecked.
You honestly think it's the government's responsibility to protect you eh? You may also think that police are there to protect you too. That is a laugh. You get what you deserve when you leave your safety up to others.