High Court Extends Gun Rights Nationwide

High Court Extends Gun Rights Nationwide
Ruling Casts Doubt On Chicago-Area Ban
MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

POSTED: 7:13 am MST June 28, 2010
UPDATED: 7:51 am MST June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

I'm telling you Chicago will find a way to secede from the union before they give there people the right to bare arms and IL will do the same before they let you even open carry. That place is all about control and taxation its an out right in the open dictatorship there. I will throw a party if the law ever catches up with them and forces them to give the people some rights back but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal-XK

I'm telling you Chicago will find a way to secede from the union before they give there people the right to bare arms and IL will do the same before they let you even open carry. That place is all about control and taxation its an out right in the open dictatorship there. I will throw a party if the law ever catches up with them and forces them to give the people some rights back but I doubt it.

---

California is not much different. they claim to issue conceal carry permits but you need the Sheriff's approval and all the Sheriff's banned together and agreed not to give permission to most people.

Pick and Choose (The Hunter Files)

June 28, 2010 The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on guns. As the New York Times writes, "The Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday."

The intent of this particular Amendment was to protect Americans against tyranny. This is why I support it. The Founding Fathers were afraid of allowing the government to own all the guns. If they own all the guns it becomes virtually impossible for the citizenry to fight back. Just imagine George Washington fighting against the British Empire without guns. The Second Amendment is a reminder that government's power is not absolute.

The Supreme Court also announced they will hear arguments for and against Arizona's Employer Sanctions bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce leads this appeal. They believe the federal government alone should enforce illegal immigration laws.

How ironic are these two cases? On one hand, politicians want to enforce their own local gun laws despite the existence of a federal law in the form of the Second Amendment. On the other hand they don't want local governments enforcing their own illegal immigration laws. Ain't that America. We pick and chose what we want and how we want to enforce it despite the glaring hypocrisies.

I heard on the radio today that Chicago politicians are already rewriting the bill to try and keep there ban on fire arms.

What exactly is the law there now as far as banning firearms ?

In Chicago you can only have a handgun if you owned it AND registered it prior to something like 1983. No one else can have a handgun in the city limits and no new permits were issued. No one can conceal carry even if you did register your gun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilSmith

What exactly is the law there now as far as banning firearms ?

---

It's simple dude get a print out of your arrest/conviction record and bring that to the police station. If you have at least 4 Violent arrests then your good to carry a gun. Or have 1 murder charge with minor assault charges you good there to. You must prove your a violent repeat offender then you can carry a gun in Chicago to continue your intimidation of the people who can't carry do to there lack of a violent wrap sheet.

Ha !!!! I bet everyone there is armed then !!

I crack my self up

2A incorporated to the states! WOO! HOO!

I've been sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for this decision.

On a somewhat related topic (Otis McDonald of Mcdonald v. Chicago was a guest) - check out the latest Stossel. Here is a link to part one of seven on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySthtM9y1Y

Chicago gun ban on way out, but mayor vows fight (June 29th, 2010 @ 3:46am)

CHICAGO (AP) - A Supreme Court ruling finding that Americans have the right to bear arms anywhere they live almost certainly means the end of Chicago's decades-old handgun ban, but it may not make handgun ownership there much easier if the city's powerful mayor has his way.

Shortly after the high court voted 5-4 Monday along familiar ideological lines- with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed- Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence.

"We will never give in to those who use guns to harm others," Daley said in comments aimed at his constituents. "Your fight is my fight and we're in this together."

And in other cities and states, officials said they were confident their gun control laws would withstand legal challenges.

"We do think it'll probably give us some bigger legal bills, but I suspect that we will be able to continue to do exactly what we've been doing- have reasonable regulations as to who can buy and where you can carry," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun control advocate, said of Monday's ruling.

The decision didn't explicitly strike down nearly 30-year-old handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.

In the majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

But the decision also signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges. Alito noted that while fully binding on states and cities, the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike a ruling two years ago overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive- quite literally- to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."

Gun rights supporters challenged the Chicago and Oak Park laws- the last two remaining outright bans, according to The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence- almost immediately after the high court struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in Washington, a federal city with a unique legal standing. That ruling applied only to federal laws.

Lower federal courts upheld the Illinois cities' bans, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

Monday's ruling was a victory for gun rights supporters, but they also said they expected state and local governments to draft laws to impede gun ownership.

Attorney David Sigale, who represented one of the plaintiffs associated with Monday's decision, said he has been advising prospective handgun owners to hold off buying them.

"In light of Mayor Daley's threat... that there could be a whole new mess of regulations on the books, which I'm sure will only go to further hinder and burden the Constitutional rights given today, I think it would be prudent to wait and see what those developments are before everyone rushes out and avails themselves of this new right," Sigale said.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said he expects the same from other municipalities as well, saying the NRA "will continue to work at every level to insure that defiant city councils and cynical politicians do not transform this constitutional victory into a practical defeat through Byzantine regulations and restrictions."

In Massachusetts, Attorney General Martha Coakley said the ruling would not pose a problem because the state controls, but doesn't ban, guns. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing a bill that would make it illegal to buy more than one gun per month.

"The provision in the governor's bill relative to a one-gun-a-month limit is not analogous since it does not ban the ownership of firearms, but just regulates the amount," said Deval's spokesman, Kyle Sullivan.

Daley didn't specify what measures he intends to push, but he said he planned to move quickly to get them in front of the City Council, saying that it is possible a special session will be called to address the issue.

He said he's considering creating a registry of the names and addresses of everyone in the city who legally owns a handgun, which would be made available to police officers, firefighters and other "first responders" before they arrive at the scene of emergencies.

The mayor also said Chicago might follow the District of Columbia's lead in requiring prospective gun owners to take training courses that include several hours of classroom learning about gun safety and passing a 20-question test.

Daley has suggested that owners may be required to buy insurance for those guns.

My translation of Daley's comments.

Shortly after the high court voted 5-4 Monday along familiar ideological lines- with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed- Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago's criminal residents from gun violence.

"We will never give those who obey the laws the right to protect them selves from criminals,"Daley said in comments aimed at his criminal constituents. "Your fight is my fight and together we can continue our intimidation of all law abiding citizens."

Sal, here in Va all you would have to do is show proof of .mil service, pay $50 and your CC permit would arrive in about 2 weeks. ( I had to do a range qual ) No firearm registration with the state, and open carry is ok also." Virginia Is For Gun Lovers "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilSmith

Sal, here in Va all you would have to do is show proof of .mil service, pay $50 and your CC permit would arrive in about 2 weeks. ( I had to do a range qual ) No firearm registration with the state, and open carry is ok also." Virginia Is For Gun Lovers "

---

Well thats one of the reasons Chicago sucks and I'm glad I don't live there anymore and have no plans of going back.