Posted on 08/24/2009 8:07:41 AM PDT by 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.
The crack-up will occur prior to the 2010 election. 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.
I fiercely love the right to keep and bear arms and would enjoy sseing all gun laws rescinded, but once govt takes over the health care industry we’re not going to have to worry about our gun rights - they’ll be gone. A govt official will declare gun owners “unhealthy” and any gun owner would then be denied health care and, to really convince him to stop thinking like a free man, they will also deny care to his wife and kids. Could this happen? I think it’s possible. Remember a few years back where children’s doctors were asking “Is there a gun in the house?”
I see another 5 - 4 for the good guys, IMHO. How could citizens of D.C. have more rights than citizens of Chicago?
It all depends on Justice Kennedy.
Pray.
Does anyone actually believe Sotomayor will recuse herself? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Remember a few years back where children’s doctors were asking “Is there a gun in the house?””
They still ask.
And in the UK your health care is limited if you smoke or are what the government calls “obese”.
Yes, it can happen hear, firearms after all being vicious and use lead, and powder. Many ways to limit health care options for gun owners.
Yup. It’s that “living document” stuff. It’s the “penumbra” that gave us Roe v Wade. The Constitution no longer means what it says. It actually means all kinds of stuff that it doesn’t say at all. Gotta have a decoder ring these days.
Utterly false.
PREDICTION: 5-4 for incorporation, with United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886) and Miller v. Texas (1894) overruled. Opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy, with the primary (possibly sole) dissent written by Justice Stevens.
The Civil War Amendments were racially based Amendments, incorporating the Bill of Rights for the new freedmen. The Democrat's racist southern governments tried to impose “black codes” which prevented former slaves from possessing guns.
These “Black Codes” were specifically designed to subjugate these recently freed slaves to be defenseless and at the mercy of the Democrat party's terror wing, the KKK. Congress passed a few laws to try and remedy this problem, but it wasn't until the Bill of Rights was incorporated did it become ‘fixed’.
Incorporation was specifically designed to force the several States to incorporate in their Constituions the federal Bill of Rights. So if this goes down ... does it become unfixed and depending on race you can control who owns a gun, or who has free speech, or (put your favorite right here)
Of course the "Civil War Amendments" did nothing to stop the Democrats terror wing, the KKK, whose influence finally dropped off in the 1950s.
Going to be an interesting time.
So you ask how did the Democrats remain in control of the southern states, quite simple, they had their terror wing, the KKK, go out and lynch the political opposition. Yes that's right, more whites were lynched by the KKK than were blacks, and for the same reason ... Intimidation and control.
Every Freeper should be a member of the NRA. Enroll in an extra gun group if you feel the need but the media and the leftists hate and fear the NRA above all others.
Please join.
No, just challenged on Constitutional law cases that go way back to Marbury v. Madison and Barron v. Baltimore. The former said that SCOTUS has the last word about what's legal. The latter stated that the Constitution only applies to the feds.
After the Civil War, cases such as Slaughterhouse, Presser and Cruikshank came along to hamstring the 14th Amendment's intent to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
It won't if the incorporationists have their way.
"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)
I can live without incorporation, if they’d rule that the Commerce clause prohibits federal regulation of arms.
Fascinating, do you have some independent sources?
Thanks for the non sequitur.
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.