Second Amendment cases up early

SCOTUSBLOG ^ | August 21, 2009 | Lyle Denniston

[neverdem]

The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket.  Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497 ^[1]) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521 ^[2]).

The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ^[3], recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.

If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.

The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592 ^[4]). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.

---

Article printed from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp

URL to article: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-cases-up-early/

URLs in this post:

[1] 08-1497: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1497.htm

[2] 08-1521: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm

[3] District of Columbia v. Heller: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

[4] (08-1592: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1592.htm

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2007 SCOTUSblog. All rights reserved.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

My brother and I had a good talk yesterday. There is only two or three things that will really set a person off.

Take away his food. Make him hungry.
Take away his method of personal security. Take his guns.
And take away his roof. Throw him out in the cold.

[Mojave]

“An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44171

[ClayinVA]

It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.

[Tarpon]

Sure, read American history books ... There are plenty online. I find the online ones from British Universities among the best, since they tend not to re-write. Search US History KKK. Some one wrote a book about the KKK and lynching recently. You did keep your old college texts, didn't you? I have one of the really old, expensive, Garrity texts.

One of the best US history books are those written by John A. Garrity The American Nation, the older the better, if you interested in truth. They are expensive, most are out of print now. Garrity was one of the best historians out there.

I'm not at home now, so I don't have my links, but I am sure you can easily find what I say is true. There were about 3500 blacks lynched and near 4000 white political opponents lynched, if I recall correctly.

[Repeal 16-17]

It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.

I don't believe Justice Sotomayor will recuse herself.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[stevie_d_64]

Oh come now...Yer just making sense now!!!

Comparing Apples to Oranges, and trying to get grape juice out of all of this is just crazy talk...Just plain crazy...

Psssttt...We still have our guns...

And, in a year we get to pull the plug on a lot of these goobers...That is going to send shock wave thru the progressive elements on the court...

Patience grasshoppah...When you can snatch the pebble from my hand...It will be time for you to load up your hollow points...;-)

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[ExGeeEye]

Utterly false.

A convincing, fact-filled argument which utterly exposes the fallacy of the preceding statement.

We all know that the Second Amendment reads

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep ad bear Arms, shall not be infringed at the federal level, other than a few common-sense regulations. States and other local governments may do as they please, up to and including forbidding the people either to keep or bear Arms.

/s!

[ctdonath2]

It won't if the incorporationists have their way.

They already did. It's called the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has just been reluctant to declare its meaning binding until each enumerated right is reviewed individually.

[BertWheeler]

Tell us more about the UK - it’s truly a horrible place now for health care.

[DaveTesla]

You are corect.
In Binghams actual words...

CONG. GLOBE, 37th Cong., 2d Sess. 1639 (1862). Bingham states that among the privileges and immunities protected by Article IV, Section 2 were the rights to freedom of speech, press, conscience, assembly, trial by jury, and the right to bear arms.

Speech of Hon. John A. Bingham at Belpre, Ohio, September 14, 1871, supra note 70

John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

On January 25, 1866, two years before the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham made clear his belief that
the federal government should be empowered to enforce the
Bill of Rights against the states. Bingham spoke in general
terms about what was to become the Fourteenth Amendment,
then pending before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction.
He said it was a [Page 72] “general”
amendment which would give Congress the express power to
enforce “the rights which were guarantied [sic] ...
from the beginning, but which guarantee has unhappily
been disregarded by more than one State of this
Union, ... simply because of a want of power in Congress to
enforce that guarantee.”
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 429 (Jan. 25, 1866).

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
(I can’t post the exact link but the CONG. GLOBE can be veiwed here.)

[Disambiguator]

It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.

I'm sure you mean where Kennedy "stands" philosophically. I'm not sure he really stands anywhere, if you catch my drift.

[Tarpon]

Keep in mind that there are plenty who want to minimize the ‘white political component’ of the Democrat’s KKK lynching streak, so you need to search deep, in the fine print. Remember, the Democrats-KKK was all about power, just like today’s Democrats, and the white establishment was the enemy that had to be stopped.

Forget Democrat shill sites Wikipedia and the like.

Like with the numbers of people the genocidal NAZIs actually murdered, closer to 12 million total, instead of just the 6 million who were Jews as is often cited. My wife is Polish and about 5 million Polish people were also murdered or thrown in the ovens.

Nobody probably knows the real numbers in either case ...

[itsahoot]

That is why people in Congress will vote for healthcare and not worry about the next election cycle. There won't be a next election cycle.

Sadly, this is probably all too true.

[Mojave]

It's called the 14th Amendment.

It's called judicial activism.

[Mojave]

“Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”—Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

[Mojave]

He said it was a [Page 72] “general” amendment which would give Congress the express power to enforce “the rights which were guarantied [sic] ... from the beginning

The "right" of the federal government to strip the states of their historic police powers was not "guarantied [sic] ... from the beginning."

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

[ctdonath2]

What’s judicially activist about the 14th Amendment, other than the reluctance to rule it applies as written?

[Mojave]

What’s judicially activist about the 14th Amendment

Its use as a cover for judicial legislation. It's the favorite wildcard amendment for the left to destroy original intent.

But you know that.