Skip to comments.PRESS RELEASE: SUPREME COURT TO HEAR McDONALD CASE(2nd Amendment)
Posted on 10/01/2009 5:14:26 AM PDT by marktwain
ChicagoGunCase.com Restoring the Second Amendment
Sep 30 2009 The Schedule
Published by Alan Gura under Uncategorized
Here is what we can look forward to in the coming months
Our opening brief is due November 16.
The citys brief is then due December 16.
Our reply brief is due January 15.
The case is expected to be argued in February, with a decision expected by the end of June, 2010.
No responses yet
Sep 30 2009 PRESS RELEASE: SUPREME COURT TO HEAR McDONALD CASE
Published by Alan Gura under news release
Read the the U.S. Supreme Court docket
WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.
At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government, noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.
Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.
I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, McDonald said. I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.
SAF was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia, Gottlieb observed. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.
Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in ones own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights.
Were pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicagos gun laws, added ISRA President Don Moran. In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicagos gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones.
The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.
Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.
What will happen when the Chicago gun ban is defeated.
First, homeowners will be able to defend themselves. He that hath no sword, sell his garment and buy one, Jesus Luke 22:36. Is there any question on this one.
Do you think allowing properly trained citizens to carry a concealed hand gun would actually reduce crime? Absolutely, CCW permits holders would give the handicap, the elderly, single women, the businessman a distinct advantage against the criminal minded individual. However, this advantage will probably not appear in the crime statistics due to the following fact. According to Jon Lott researcher author, firearms are used 2000 times without ever firing a round. These are never reported or the fear of being arrested therefore the statistics may never show the benefit of the armed citizen in the police statistics. See Gary Smith compilation of DOJ, FBI, facts @ www.gunfacts.info
Currently, millions of American citizens who are licensed CCW permit holders are made to run the minefield of checkerboard ordinances. These honest citizens should not be made criminals, given felony records, had their firearms taken away, just because they crossed an invisible line. I am a duel CCW permit holder and I know my 10 years of interstate travel I have perhaps committed firearms felonies by crossing some invisible boundary. A real example, it occurred to me just 30 days ago in South Dakota on a hunting trip. On my person I had two CCW permits (different states), hunting license from South Dakota, and the Indian Reservation, and had just spoken with a South Dakota State Trooper who said we could carry anywhere in South Dakota, except inside churches, schools, and bars. Less than two hours later we were pulled over, by national parks police (we had to cross a two-mile strip of land between the hunting grounds and our motel) for a vehicle inspection crossing over a corner of the park. The officer asked did we have drugs or guns. I informed the officer we had all kinds of drugs (heart medication) and guns and he informed me that concealed carry was not legal on that stretch of road and that all firearms must be in their case. Fortunately he did not carry the conversation further, as I had inadvertently broken a federal law after being informed by North Dakota State trooper to the contrary. It is for this reason and others similar reasons that municipalities should not have the right to prohibit concealed carry within their jurisdiction. Because if you allow independent jurisdictions to exist, this will open the flood gates of injustice and mistrust between citizens, law enforcement and community leaders as courts sort through cross an invisible line violations.
Some of the best shall issue states for regulations concerning CCW carry, Texas, Florida, Utah, and Colorado
CCW permit holders, should be allowed to dine out at restaurants not exceed by state law for vehicle driver intoxication standards , drop off their children at school and school zones, entered churches and synagogues, as these are some of the most honest and responsible people in the United States. CCW permit holders should be allowed store their firearms in their vehicles at work sites.
In our society there are citizens who oppose CCW echoing loudly that the wild West guns shoot outs will occur in an uncontrollable nature. CCW has been passed in 48 states, starting with just 13 in 1987 and the Wild West scenario has failed to occur. Five million CCW permit holders in the nation have the lowest criminal contact with law enforcement of any group in the nation because they are solid citizens.
When I travel South (FL) to avoid the winter snow, I must stop on the highway to CCW at the Gary (I-80) Indiana State line. When I returned three months later I must reverse the procedure having CCW carry during the entire trip. I sometimes wonder what would happen a passing motorist saw me put a gun in my holster on the side of the road, as the frantic motorist calls 911 to report a man with a gun. At this point in my trip and being disarmed by the archaic statutes of the state of Illinois does not make me happy, and I am being disarmed in one of the perhaps most crime-ridden communities in the nation, Gary Indiana. People in 48 states trust me to be a responsible citizen, but the people of Illinois want to make me a felon by a state ordinance rather than honoring the Second amendment constitutional right.
State of Illinois should have the following permit requirements for the following reasons.
When a CCW citizen is walking down the street, driving in his vehicle, entering a restaurant, grocery store, hardware store, that CCW citizen is taking on a responsibility, and mindset that is different. It is for that reason, Proper training in firearms safety, reason for CCW holsters, situational awareness, the five rules of concealed carry weapon, Illinois rules of CCW, firearms proficiency, legal ramifications drawing the handgun and even firing, what should you do been involved in a shooting police have yet to arrive, procedures for handling encounters with law enforcement officers, and social responsibility. Minimum age requirement, FBI fingerprint check, passing a background check, attending a certified safety class, demonstrating firearms proficiency with a certified trainer would be on my checklist.
Comments regarding gun free zones. As mentioned earlier any CCW permit holder who goes through the rigorous training routines for CCW permits are some of the most honest, trustworthy, and commit less crime than any other group. It is for this reason that there should be very few gun free zones for several logical reasons. First, the safest place for CCW firearm is holster securely attached to the permit holder. To require permit holders to arm and disarm just outside of a gun free zone is inviting accidental discharges, neighborhood paranoia should a CCW permit holder be observed. As mentioned earlier restaurants that serve alcohol, school drop zones, and churches should not be included in gun free zones. The logic and reason incorporating this legal standard is that mass shooters and other parts of the country have always chosen gun free zones to pull off their murderous terrorism. Two women who are CCW permit holders,
Ms. Jean Assam, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqDVBWcBy2g
and Ms. Suzanne Hupp, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f12XrQ6H0Og
who have survived gun free zones shooting tell their story here. Therefore The legal requirement for gun free zones should be a state designed standard sign that can be displayed by the entity if they so choose. Violation should be a minor monetary fine.
Eleven years ago I had not handled a firearm in 30 years. Over the last 10 years, I have been become a avid sportsman, and marksman with the long gun. I have been one of the fortunate 100 people in the State of Illinois who trains and competes with federal, state, local, and county law enforcement officers in a Police Pistol League. Members of the club have access some of the best law enforcement firearms training programs in the nation, have increased my proficiency by taking 40 hours advanced pistol, deployment of a rifle or shotgun from a patrol vehicle, breach or entry tactics, room clearing tactics in addition to other classes. It is not necessary to take this type of training the CCW licensed.
Landlord and wife http://www.wlky.com/video/16509601/index.html
IMHO, this is the most important part of the case, not Chicago's gun ban. Here, we have the incorporation ruling possibility we have long hoped for and never gotten close to.
If the majority rule that Local jurisdictions cannot hold a higher standard than State law, and state law cannot hold a higher standard than Federal law, then we have incorporation across the nation. California's 50 cal gun ban would be deemed null and void.
Heller was just the tip of the iceberg. This case has ramifications nationwide.
Not your typical Charlton Heston NRA white guy.
Thank You for informing me of who Otis MacDonald is.
I was aware of his case, but didn’t know of this gentleman’s particulars.
Indeed, this case will have sweeping ramifications for firearm owners.
By the way, I just completed the finger-printing process here in Michigan yesterday for my CPL.
After submission, the State has 45 days to issue it.
Fortunately, Michigan is now a “Shall-issue” state.
A woman is also one of the plantiffs, who is my friend.
Be Ever Vigilant!
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.