Posted on 08/24/2009 8:07:41 AM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497 [1]) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521 [2]).
The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller [3], recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.
If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.
The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592 [4]). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.
Article printed from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp
URL to article: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-cases-up-early/
URLs in this post:
[1] 08-1497: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1497.htm
[2] 08-1521: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm
[3] District of Columbia v. Heller: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
[4] (08-1592: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1592.htm
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2007 SCOTUSblog. All rights reserved.
Gotta source for that assertion?
False. There had been no judicial legislation twisting and "incorporating" the Second Amendment in 1886. Or since.
Utterly false. And sourceless, natch.
Don’t feed the troll...
The Constitution wasn't changed between 1833 and 1873?
The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed during that period, actually all were between 1865 and 1870.
There had been no judicial legislation twisting and "incorporating" the Second Amendment between 1833 and 1873. Or since.
>>Remember a few years back where childrens doctors were asking Is there a gun in the house?
I had it happen, on a questionnaire during a routine check up for my son. When the doctor came in, I asked if he was a household safety expert, and why weren’t they also asking about swimming pools and other hazards that cause more accidental deaths than firearms. I then told him I thought the question likely represented a boundary violation.
He got really defensive, really fast.
Wouldn't failure by the court to protect the right of the people from infringements by various states constitute judicial 'in-activism'?
Courts aren’t supposed to be “active” in creating laws from the bench or in altering the Constitution.
So true this is not a government that is staking its future on being re-elected. They do not care.
The leftist aka progressive gun haters have forced the pro right to bear arms side into using reasons for a right. You know reasons like defense, hunting, collecting, and of course target shooting.
There is only one reason for a right. It is your right.
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.