The Supreme Court and gun control

[Bounce12 407]

Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control

 

 

Feb 28, 12:00 AM (ET)

 

By MARK SHERMAN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gun control advocates think, if not pray, they can win by losing when the Supreme Court decides whether the constitutional right to possess guns serves as a check on state and local regulation of firearms.

 

The justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment - like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights - applies to states as well as the federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.

 

But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."

 

I don't want the term "reasonable" to be defined for me by Sarah Brady.

 

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns.

 

Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

 

The new lawsuits were begun almost immediately after the court's blockbuster ruling in 2008 that struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. In that case, the court ruled for the first time that individuals have a right keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Because the nation's capital is a federal enclave, that ruling applied only to federal laws.

 

The challenges to the Chicago area laws, which are strikingly similar to the Washington law, are part of an aggressive push by gun rights proponents in the courts and state legislatures.

 

Courts are considering many gun laws following the justice's 2008 decision. Massachusetts' highest state court is examining the validity of a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.

 

Two federal appeals courts have raised questions about gun possession convictions of people who previously had been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. A suit in Washington challenges the capital's ban on carrying loaded guns on public streets.

 

Lawmakers in several states are pushing for proposals favored by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. The Virginia Legislature is considering repealing a law that limits handgun purchases to one a month. That law was enacted in 1993 because Virginia was the No. 1 supplier of guns used in crimes in other states. A separate proposal in Virginia would allow people with a concealed-weapon permit to take hidden guns into restaurants that sell alcohol, as long as those patrons don't drink.

 

Chicago is defending its gun laws at the high court. Mayor Richard Daley said a ruling against his city would spawn even more suits nationwide and lead to more gun violence.

 

"How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?" Daley said at a Washington news conference last week that also included the parents of a Chicago teenager who was shot on a bus as he headed home from school.

 

Look at your own South Side, Mayor. How are your own anti-gun laws working out for you?

 

Annette Nance-Holt said her only child, 16-year-old Blair Holt, shielded his friend when a gang member boarded a bus and began shooting at rival gang members.

 

"You might ask, 'What good is Chicago's handgun law if so many of our young people are still being shot?'" Nance-Holt said. "All I can say is, imagine how many more would be if the law were not there." Yeah, and imagine how much more global warming we'd have if 0bama hadn't been elected president! Idiot!

 

 

 

Gun rights advocates say such killings should serve as reminders that handgun bans and other gun laws do nothing to protect people who obey the law.

 

Indeed, 76-year-old Otis McDonald said he joined the suit in Chicago because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.

 

The thrust of the legal arguments in the case is over how the Supreme Court might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.

 

In earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court has done so by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

 

The court also has relied on that same clause - "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" - in cases that established a woman's right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

 

This is the approach the NRA favors.

 

But many conservative and legal scholars - as well as the Chicago challengers - want the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

 

They argue this clause was intended as a broad guarantee of the civil rights of the former slaves, but that a Supreme Court decision in 1873 effectively blocked its use.

 

Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, these scholars say.

 

This approach might enable challenges to arcane state laws that limit economic competition, said Clark M. Neily III of the public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He pointed to a Louisiana law that protects existing florists by requiring a license before someone can arrange or sell flowers. The licensing exam is graded by florists, he noted.

 

"No reasonable person thinks that law has a legitimate purpose," Neily said. But he said, "Right now, once you get a law like this on the books, it's almost impossible to get rid of."

 

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Bounce12

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

Since becoming a business member, I've largely sworn off political commentary, but in this case I'll make an exception...

 

This is what the constitution states on the issue:

 

"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".

 

Seems sufficiently well stated and clear to me;) "III"

[ktcm7271 999]

Great post Bounce, and glad to have ya back WS, I've learned a lot from you guys. I'll be watching this case closely, since the news isn't talking about it. Dick Daley has an appropriate name. How about D.C. and Chicago scoring high on the Brady gun law scale and Utah scoring low. Where is there more violence again?

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

Great post Bounce, and glad to have ya back WS, I've learned a lot from you guys. I'll be watching this case closely, since the news isn't talking about it. Dick Daley has an appropriate name. How about D.C. and Chicago scoring high on the Brady gun law scale and Utah scoring low. Where is there more violence again?

 

LOL! I never went anywhere KTCM, but I've noticed business members tend to get flamed when commenting on political issues. Even humor seems to be more commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted.

 

While my own views tend to be libertarian, I have noticed that my customers views tend to run the political spectrum. What is encouraging is that all seem share a love of great firearms, and a common belief and commitment in the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms.

 

We DO live in a great country!

 

Nuff said!

[swells08 128]

+1 WS and good luck with Lone Star Arms!

[swells08 128]

I hate how people think bad guys won't find a way to commit crimes...sure guns in the wrong hands can be bad, but taking guns away from law abiding citizens is absolutely un-called for.

[Lone Star Arms 2,047]

+1 WS and good luck with Lone Star Arms!

 

+1 Back at you! If you build it, (and it shoots like MTK intended it to) it all works out! Thanks for the well wishes. Business is good!

 

WS

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

Yeah, McDonald vs. Chicago is a huge case that is going to have some very big ramifications. It is clearing up things that haven't been ruled on since the post-civil war era. If the case weren't about guns, this would be all over the news.

 

I am really looking forward to the outcome of this case, because it is HUGE. Bigger than Heller. Heller stated that the second amendment is an individual right. But, it only applied to the Federal government. If the court rules in McDonald's favor, it will incorporate it to the states. That is HUGE. What that does is open up the floodgates for a ton of lawsuits against the bullshit gun laws.

 

For example, states with "may issue" carry permits such as NY, CA, NJ, would be able to be challenged in court. May-issue laws on ownership like California's "hi-cap magazine license" or NJ's "assault weapons license" would also be challenged to go from may issue to shall issue. Of course these states will probably uphold their unconstitutional laws. But then it gets appealed, all the way up the chain, until a Federal or the Supreme court strikes it down. That would turn states like these into shall issue states. Of course, they will try as many little asinine restrictions as they can, but it will continue to be challenged in court. Some of these states have even admitted that they can't afford to fight them all.

 

Unfortunately, the supporting opinion for Heller stated that "reasonable regulation" was ok. So these states will still no doubt tack on lengthy permit wait times, additional fees, interviews, mandatory training, etc. and those would have to be challenged separately unfortunately. For example Chicago would have to allow handguns, but just like DC, they are expected to come up with some very expensive, lengthy, time consuming, prohibitive permit process that will have to be again challenged in court. For example, DC's new handgun laws charge $349 in fees, multiple police station visits, mandatory training classes, there's still only one FFL in all of DC and his transfer fee is $125, so to get a single handgun there is close to $1,000.

 

But this is HUGE start and the beginning of an era - CA shall-issue CCW and regular magazines in NJ and MD....imagine that!

 

This is also a very serious effort and 38 states are supporting McDonald in writing. There are a large number of senators also filed briefs in favor of McDonald - both Democrat and Republican. Only 3 states are supporting Chicago - IL, MD and NJ.

 

So in short, if the court rules in favor of McDonald, we are going to see a huge shift in how even our most anti-gun states will be forced to recognize the second amendment over the years. It's not going to be fast, McDonald has been in the works for seven years now, and is a very intricate effort by a number of top lawyers who carefully recruited plaintiffs. But ti's the start of a very good one and in 10-15 years we may see a very noticeable shift towards pro-gun laws in many states where it was otherwise unthinkable. March 2 is going to be a very important day.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[HOWARD COSELL 155]

Outdated article

 

 

EDIT

I found this on the Fox Nation website today.

Just realized that it was dated in Feb. 09

Edited March 1, 2010 by THE RIPPER

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

http://abcnews.go.co...=6960824&page=1

 

That's one year old. Look at the date at the top of the page.

 

C'mon now....This is an important thread about a HUGE gun rights cased about to be argued in the Supreme Court, expected to be ruled in our favor, which will open the floodgates to challenge bad guns laws everywhere. Let's not hijack it with year old bantering over the gun control ideas of two decades ago.

 

We as gun owners need to make sure we are well educated on the issues and vigilant about protecting our rights. Part of that is making sure we are focused on important, current, realistic issues at hand, and not get distracted by old, incorrect, or sensationalist headlines. To do so would make us no better than the liberals.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[HOWARD COSELL 155]

http://abcnews.go.co...=6960824&page=1

 

That's one year old. Look at the date at the top of the page.

 

C'mon now....This is an important thread about a HUGE gun rights cased about to be argued in the Supreme Court, expected to be ruled in our favor, which will open the floodgates to challenge bad guns laws everywhere. Let's not hijack it with year old bantering over the gun control ideas of two decades ago.

 

We as gun owners need to make sure we are well educated on the issues and vigilant about protecting our rights. Part of that is making sure we are focused on important, current, realistic issues at hand, and not get distracted by old, incorrect, or sensationalist headlines. To do so would make us no better than the liberals.

 

You must have posted this while I was editing my post. Like I said, it is on Fox Nation website today. Why they put it there, I don't know. Sorry

My first -1 rep

 

http://www.thefoxnation.com/obama/2010/02/28/obama-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban

Edited March 1, 2010 by THE RIPPER

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

http://abcnews.go.co...=6960824&page=1

 

That's one year old. Look at the date at the top of the page.

 

C'mon now....This is an important thread about a HUGE gun rights cased about to be argued in the Supreme Court, expected to be ruled in our favor, which will open the floodgates to challenge bad guns laws everywhere. Let's not hijack it with year old bantering over the gun control ideas of two decades ago.

 

We as gun owners need to make sure we are well educated on the issues and vigilant about protecting our rights. Part of that is making sure we are focused on important, current, realistic issues at hand, and not get distracted by old, incorrect, or sensationalist headlines. To do so would make us no better than the liberals.

 

You must have posted this while I was editing my post. Like I said, it is on Fox Nation website today. Why they put it there, I don't know. Sorry

My first -1 rep

 

http://www.thefoxnation.com/obama/2010/02/28/obama-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban

 

Which is exactly why FOX is garbage....fear mongering stupid bullshit from a year ago while we are days away from one of the biggest gun rights cases in history.

 

Anyways, here's some real info, with lots of details about the case and the ramifications of its outcome:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/second-amendment-drama-act-ii/#more-16704

 

I had another one about Mr. McDonald and how he came to be recruited by GOA's lawyers as the lead plaintiff. He is a very good guy with a perfect backstory to be the lead plaintiff in court. He's an Army veteran and black, and he also takes pride himself in wanting to break the stereotype of gun owners just being hillbillies as they are often portrayed. He has lived in the neighborhood for decades. He has been robbed by the gangs there three times over the course of 20-something years. Whole bunch of other cool stuff about him but I can't seem to find it...damn it...

Edited March 1, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[sudaevpps43 31]

I am not a lawyer, but I definitely agree that McDonald vs. Chicago is a huge Supreme Court case with regards to self defense rights. However I'm not ready to break out the champagne bottles just yet, because while the odds look good that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of incorporation (and so apply the Heller decision to the states), depending on what level of scrutiny the court decides to apply the ruling with, the ruling may in fact only put an end to the most severe anti-self defense laws (like outright bans on firearms in general), while leaving all other slightly less severe anti-self defense laws (like waiting periods, mandatory registration, firearms bans based on cosmetic features, etc.) intact. I'm sure our more legally proficient forum members could explain it better, but in a nutshell if the Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald and incorporates Heller, but doesn't apply the ruling with strict scrutiny, then it will only be a partial victory for self defense rights.

 

The ideal situation would be that the supreme court rules in favor of incorporation of Heller and applies the ruling with strict scrutiny under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, which in addition to ending outright firearms bans in places like Chicago, would also have a good chance of putting an end to laws banning certain firearm features (i.e. the 'sporting purposes' clause of the 1968 GCA, or bans on pistol grips, folding stocks, magazines above a certain capacity, bayonet lugs, etc.), an end to laws prohibiting people from keeping their firearms in their vehicles when at work, and an end to laws that exist only to make it as difficult as possible to legally possess a firearm (like the permit process that currently exists in D.C.). However, if the Supreme Court instead rules in favor of incorporation applied under a weaker level of scrutiny, like intermediate scrutiny through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, then laws like firearms features bans, laws banning guns in cars at work, and laws establishing an expensive and time consuming firearms permit process, would likely end up still being considered constitutional and remain in place.

 

What's possibly even worse about this scenario (aside from just the weaker boost it would give to self-defense rights) is that the Supreme Court, which currently leans conservative, will have missed their (likely only) chance to put some practical conservative boundaries on future Supreme court rulings in cases where the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment may come up. This means a future Supreme Court, which would be more likely to lean liberal (since at least some conservative justices are likely to retire within the next decade, and so likely be replaced by more liberal justices under the Obama administration), would be unconstrained by any previous Supreme Court ruling on the privileges or immunities clause under the 14th amendment. So a future liberal Supreme Court would be free to potentially make very liberal rulings on cases that might involve the privileges or immunities clause under the 14th Amendment, such as cases on abortion or national healthcare (to name just a few).

 

I'm not trying to be a downer, and the odds are good that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of McDonald and incorporate Heller to the states, but unfortunately the court will likely do it with a weaker level of scrutiny than strict scrutiny. So while the McDonald vs. Chicago ruling will very likely result in the repealing of outright firearms bans in the U.S., it unfortunately isn't likely to result in any other slightly less severe anti-self defense laws being struck down.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Frogfoot

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

Here's that other article I was looking for:

 

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald

Edited March 1, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov

[Bounce12 407]

I'm not sure how any Supreme Court Justice can hold that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the citizens of Chicago, yet I guarantee you at least four of them will.

 

But beyond that, it's obvious that "gun free zones" really amount to disarmed victims zones. Don't we have enough evidence that THAT doesn't work to promote safety?????

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bounce12