1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

7th Circuit: 2nd amendment NOT incorporated; upholds Chicago handgun ban

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Jun 3, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Several weeks ago, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the 2nd amendment's blanket ban on "gun control" laws applied to state and local governments, as well as to the Federal governments. Now the 7th Circuit has ruled the opposite: that its ban does not apply to state and local governments.

    I pointed out back then, that the 9th Circus ruling was unnecessary: the clear language of the 2nd amendment makes no restriction to only the Federal govenment, unlike the language of the 1st amendment, which restricts its regulation to only the Fed ("Congress shall make no law..."). Courts have violated that clear distinction, of course, for generations, pretending the amendment didn't say what it said, or that the distinction was somehow "unclear".

    But today's 7th Circuit ruling is a clear violation of the 2nd's ban on gun restrictions.

    SWince two different Circuit Courts have now ruled in opposite ways on the same issue, this often (but not always) causes the Supreme Court to take the case if it's appealed there.

    Hopefully the Supremes will grant cert and hear the case once it's presented.

    -------------------------------------

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide

    Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    By Andrew M. Harris

    June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

    The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

    “The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

    The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

    “We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

    Applicable Law

    A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.

    “This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.

    “This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.

    The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).


    (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
     
  2. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I'm a moderate on gun issues myself. I have owned a lot of handguns, shotguns and and even a few assault type weapons (Thompson 45, M1 carbine, AR15)... but have long ago sold off all my assault weapons.

    I can see the language in the 2nd is a right to bears arms.

    However I think some restrictions on "what" arms and the actual places where they can or cannot be carried is valid as well as is the enforcement of strict review as far as background checks etc for ownership and/or possession.

    In other words... there's a right for law abiding citizens to "OWN" firearms. There's nothing stated saying that they can be "CARRIED" anywhere & everywhere a person might go.

    I also see the precedent for having even tighter controls & restrictions on military weapons. For example fully automatic weapons and weapons with silencers have been illegal for years. With the current mass fire power of today's military assault weapons (even @ semi-auto) I can ALSO see the argument for requiring a Federal Firearms License for them again as we once had. These weapons have evolved to such mass firepower and are so easily converted to full auto it is definitely a problem for law enforcement.

    So a right for law abiding citizens to buy firearms... yes.

    Carry them anywhere and everywhere they might want... no.

    Strict background checks to help weed out felons & the mentally ill... yes.

    An ability to class certain weapons as military, still allow ownership but a higher regulation... yes.
     
  3. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    What have you done to get the 2nd amendment modified, to provide for the exceptions you have detailed here?
     
Loading...

Share This Page