Posted on 09/30/2009 10:57:58 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on state gun regulations, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of weapons rights in the 21st century.
Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital city.
That decision rested on the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.
The same attorney who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against gun regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.
The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states as well as the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also would be read this way.
The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel at the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court found that it remained bound by the 1886 precedent.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bang
I don’t care what the local laws proscribe. I am prepared to protect my family, my home, and myself! Damn the consequences!
“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ........ SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ..... what is so hard to understand?
The Supreme Court has laready ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, whcih means that the Federal government can’t take away your guns.
The courts have previously ruled that via the Fourteenth Amendment, the entire Bill of Rights applies also to states and localities.
Thus, local gun bans are clearly unconstitutional.
Hopefully the five justices that voted the right way in the first case stay healthy over the next few months and decide the same way in this case, because we can pretty much guess how any Obama appointment will decide...
Absolutely...If those five do the right thing it could go a long way in settling this.
If the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee the rights of citizens concerning guns, then it doesn’t guarantee them any other rights.
Either the Constitution is a valid document that guarantees U.S. Citizens certain rights, or it is a worthless document that doesn’t guarantee individual citizens any rights at all.
The left is playing a very dangerous game here, because civil rights are a part of this document, by amendment.
If there are no gun rights, then there are no free speech rights, no civil rights, and no rights of protection from any search any police agency should wish to carry out.
A ruling that would allow states to deny gun rights would by precedent nullify any granting of federal rights via the U.S. Constitution, on the whim of any of the 50 states.
The Supreme Court cannot deny the universality of gun rights, or it destroys this founding document, and therefore the very fabric of the nation.
Agreed! If the five justices that rulled on Heller will rule favorably on this it will be a tremendous help in shutting down the antigun crowd.
Orwell. The Heller decision stated your ‘rights are not abosolute’.
The SC has no problem denying rights and allowing local jusridictions to take away your gun rights, ie school zones, safety zones, gov’t buildings, etc.
False.
I agree, and I am very hopeful. I will tell you that when these issues come up, I consider them a ‘hold your breath’ moment until the right decision is handed down.
Let’s hope one is.
Over the next 6 months millions of American gun owners will begin to have a deeper understanding of the word “incorporation.”
Be Ever Vigilant!
If they do the right thing, then Daley and his jackbooted thugs in blue will still continue to enforce anti-constitutional gun laws. Just like POS Fenty and his blue goons still make it almost impossible to get a gun in DC. If it goes the wrong way then even more local wannabe tyrants and their eager gun gestapo will be out enslaving the populace. This is a big risk without a lot of reward.
Didn’t I read somewhere that you could appeal for a redress of grievances against state laws?
But their case got left in limbo. This is Alan Gura's case. The same Attorney who won the DC "Heller" case. With help from the NRA and a cast of thousands. :)
Rremember what Reagan said.
"You can accomplish much if you don't care who gets the credit."
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.