Skip to comments.High Court Targets Chicago's Gun Ban
Posted on 10/02/2009 5:59:52 PM PDT by Kaslin
Gun Control: The Supreme Court agrees to decide if the Second Amendment applies to all of us, or just Washington, D.C. Why would the Founders put in the Bill of Rights something applying only to a federal enclave?
In a 5-4 decision last year written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned a draconian District of Columbia gun ban enacted 32 years ago that barred private ownership of handguns at all. Scalia wrote that an individual's right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The court ruled that the Second Amendment indeed protected an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. But it left unclear whether the ruling applied outside the nation's capital.
The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and suburb Oak Park that similarly believe the Constitution prevents citizens from defending themselves.
That decision was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, and his reasoning was fascinating. According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a U.S. Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Kennedy will be the swing vote to knock out all these gun bans, 5-4, turn the oven off the pie is done, and won’t it taste good.
“Kennedy will be the swing vote to knock out all these gun bans, 5-4, turn the oven off the pie is done, and wont it taste good.”
One thing to remember. ALL the Justices work FOR the government.
Methinks we should put subtle-but-strong security around five Justices... and hope Kennedy comes down upright on this.
Scalia: We Are Devoting Too Many of Our Best Minds to Lawyering
Well, you know, two chiefs ago, Chief Justice Burger, used to complain about the low quality of counsel. I used to have just the opposite reaction. I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.
I mean thered be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isnt she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?
I mean lawyers, after all, dont produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. Thats important, but it doesnt put food on the table and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.
And they appear here in the Court, I mean, even the ones who will only argue here once and will never come again. Im usually impressed with how good they are. Sometimes you get one whos not so good. But, no, by and large I dont have any complaint about the quality of counsel, except maybe were wasting some of our best minds.
“in the home”...disastrous.
If this reasoning is upheld it will start a war.
They think of themselves as members of an independent organization, not as part of the federal government.
I sure hope and pray they get rid of these gun bans. I live in the People’s Republic of MA and it’s always puckering time to renew my LTC. I am one of the fortunate ones that has an LTC-A no restrictions living in Boston, but it’s BS the hoops they make folks go through to get one.
Gun that Ban DOWN! Put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
Something scary I heard: A friend told me that thru back channels, Obama asked the USSC to accept the Chicago case and to hear it soon. IF the pie is done as you said, all I can hope and pray is that it won't be a S*** sandwich shoved down all our throats!
I don't think so. If it was necessary to keep the Heller decision so narrow in order to get Kennedy to go along, then that is what we have.
But there is nothing in the Heller decision that suggests that self-defense OUTSIDE the home is any the less worthy of protection. People operate businesses and have the right to defend themselves while doing so.
People travel the nation, for business and pleasure, and they do not give up that same right to self-defense described in Heller.
The anti-gunners have used incrementalism to keep adding more and more infringements, each time depending upon the fact that the new infringement is a logical extension of the prior infringements. Ignorant legislators, eager to make political points, have gone along with this.
Now the process is being reversed. Now that the Court has decided that handguns in the home are definitively protected, it remains to have a decision regarding private businesses. And then a decision regarding self-defense while in transit.
Some states permit only open carry. Some permit only concealed carry. The Court will need to recognize that the Second Amendment is silent on this issue. If the Founders intended for the government to dictate such a matter, the Second Amendment would have reflected that thinking.
I find myself marveling that the glacial pace of Supreme Court decisions has, in fact, been highly accelerated during that last few years. I don't think I will be nearly as gray as I thought when the infringements in Kalifornia are struck down.
and thanks FGS:
Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority
cbsnews.com | 1 October, 2009 | Declan McCullagh
Posted on 10/02/2009 5:08:05 AM PDT by marktwain
Let’s hope Obama’s gun ban strategy is as successful as his Olympics strategy.
On a RELATED point: I am sure Rio deserved to win the Olympic slot, yet I am also convinced that much of the No vote on Chicago was pure anti-Americanism.
HOWEVER, with Chicagos handgun ban, no shooting athlete would have been ALLOWED to compete, or even posess his handgun, in Chi-town! Maybe they would have done that in Michigan? Perhaps THAT is one reason why they voted for Rio.
But it left unclear whether the ruling applied outside the nation’s capital.
When the civil rights act was passed did every civil rights group in other states need to use the courts to overturn racist laws?
HA! On the surface, this sounds easy. Am I wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.