Posted on 06/16/2009 9:24:35 PM PDT by Steelfish
Gun Rulings Open Way to Supreme Court Review
JOHN SCHWARTZ
June 16, 2009
A year ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision establishing the constitutional right of Americans to own guns. But the justices did not explain what the practical effect of that ruling would be on city and state gun laws.
Could a city still ban handguns? The justices said the District of Columbia could not, but only because it is a special federal district. The question of the constitutionality of existing city and state gun laws was left unanswered.
That left a large vacuum for the lower courts to fill. Supporters of gun rights filed a flurry of lawsuits to strike down local gun restrictions, and now federal appeals courts have begun weighing in on this divisive issue, using very different reasoning.
One court this month upheld Chicago’s ban on automatic weapons and concealed handguns, while in April a California court disagreed on the constitutional issue.
The differing opinions mean that the whole issue of city and state gun laws will probably head back to the Supreme Court for clarification, leading many legal experts to predict a further expansion of gun rights.
The new cases are fallout from last year’s Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of Washington’s gun control ordinance, the strictest in the country, and stated for the first time that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms for personal use. But the court declined to say whether the Second Amendment in general applies to state and local governments.
In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, in a ruling joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, declined to apply the Second Amendment to a New York
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
What line of the opinion had that quote???
Ummm, not to be picky but, the second amendment did that! The court cannot establish a right that the people already posses. Sometimes it as if these liberals are not even aware of the constitution - I know they are not aware of the tenth amendment!
Heading ‘em off at the pass
Western States Want Reins on Federal Power
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-west16-2009jun16,0,3422958.story
People need to be clear that Heller (as well as virtually all USSC rulings), pertains to 14th Amendment federal administrative jurisdiction, under which there are no rights, only privileges which must be specified. This is contrary to the doctrine of negative rights under which the Constitution was signed, where basically everything is a right, unless it is specifically banned by the Constitution.
ANY discussion of Heller or the USSC generally is talking about PRIVILEGES, not rights, even though they only use the word “rights.” They use the word “rights” simply because the feds have decreed that they can CALL privileges rights, not because privileges ARE rights. And of course, no one “corrects” the “mistakes” of the MSM.
If the right to keep and bear arms isn't an absolute right then it's subject to a judges opinion whether or not it applies to you. No court should have the power to deny a guaranteed right, if a Constitutionally guaranteed right can be annulled by a judge the guarantee is worthless. The authors knew what they intended the 2nd Amendment to protect and so do these judges if they can read English, but they simply refuse to uphold that right as the authors intended.
We need another revolution, only this time against our own government, because it has become far more oppressive than King George ever was. The Constitution is a great document written by great men, but words written on parchment 218 years ago just don't have the power to stop a tyrannical government from oppressing the governed, and a tyrannical government is exactly what we now have.
Shouldn't this also really read: a further recognition of gun rights......???
What line of the opinion had that quote???but only because it is a special federal district.
I do believe that the opinion specifically said that it did not address anything other than the right of a resident of DC to own and possess a handgun in his home in DC, and did not address applicability to any but the Federal Government and its creature, the DC government (the federal government itself being a creature of the state governments).
>The Constitution is a great document written by great men, but words written on parchment 218 years ago just don’t have the power to stop a tyrannical government from oppressing the governed, and a tyrannical government is exactly what we now have.
Ironically enough, the arms mentioned in the Second Amendment DO.
The question is when. With Maloney also on their plate, will the Supreme Court do anything before their next term?
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.