Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.comChicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court
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.”
“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”
In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.
“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”
"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. "
WTF? Who does it then apply to?
I would very much like to see the argument that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to the states.WTF? Who does it then apply to?
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
Looks like the 2nd amendment is on its way to incorpration against actions by the states.
Its about time.
Given its ruling in Heller, its hard to see how it cannot.As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention, either Federal or local. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.
I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
This one is definitely headed to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit, in Nordyke v King, rejected the reasoning used in the 2nd Circuit's Maloney v Cuomo, and is squarely at odds with National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago.As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.
I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
Enemies of the Constitution.
One wonders how it ever managed to BE applied to the states...One wonders when the first amendment will no longer apply to States?
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
Looks like the 2nd amendment is on its way to incorpration against actions by the states.
Its about time.
And people think I don't know what I'm talking about when I bitch about Chicago. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than you will find in Chicago politics. There is no better example of big brother type politics. Disarm the People, give them no opportunity to fight back against the State and its goon squad. For as much as I love that city, the politics there are crazy. And Daley and his storm troopers use arguments like "collective safety" as the reason behind it. Which should immediately show the problems and dangers with the collective "safety" argument. Its a mainstay for those seeking to steal freedom and liberty.
It's the second amendment, and the potential abolishing of it, that will eventually trigger the actual secession of part of this country. Just watch.
The weekend of May 30-31, 2009 there were seven gun homicides in one twenty-four hour period in the city of Chicago. Nuff said for preventing law abiding citizens from "gun owners".
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
Looks like the 2nd amendment is on its way to incorpration against actions by the states.
Its about time.
"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. "
WTF? Who does it then apply to?
Who were the judges on that panel?
Enemies of the Constitution.
As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention, either Federal or local. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.
I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
Given its ruling in Heller, its hard to see how it cannot.
Perhaps not explicitly, but Heller did affirm a fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.Heller didn't apply it to the states.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Can you show me evidence that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to bind state or local governments?
Presumably before the 14th amendment you did not have right to bear arms if the state or locality said you didn't, only the feds were retrained. It was between you and your state or locality to decide the matter.Perhaps not explicitly, but Heller did affirm a fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
The Fourteenth Amendment, however, is explicit in requiring the states to respect right elucidated in the US Constitution:
From Heller we have an assurance the 2nd Amendment confirms the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. From the Fourteenth Amendment we have an assurance the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution may not be circumscribed by the states.
Presumably before the 14th amendment you did not have right to bear arms if the state or locality said you didn't...
The right to bear arms - as the Founders and American citizenry understood it - predated the Constitution. It was socially evident that the right to keep and bear arms was universal and immutable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?