Posted on 03/02/2010 6:30:33 PM PST by Steelfish
Justices Signal They're Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right A high court majority reviewing a handgun ban in Chicago indicates that it sees the right to bear arms as national in scope, and can be used to strike down some state and local gun regulations.
By David G. Savage March 3, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
The court's majority appears almost certain to strike down a Chicago ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home. Of U.S. cities, only Chicago and its Oak Park suburb have total bans on handguns. But many cities and states have laws regulating who can have a gun and where they can take it.
Gun rights advocates have said they've been waiting for the court's ruling in this case to begin challenging gun regulations nationwide.
At one point in Tuesday's argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted the city's lawyers doubted that people had a right to carry concealed weapons in public.
"Well, maybe that's right," Roberts said. But he quickly added that the question could be left for a future case, indicating that the court was not likely to sweep away additional gun regulations in this ruling.
But the clear message from the argument is that a five-member majority on the court thinks the right "to bear arms" is a fundamental right, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by federal regulations, state laws or city ordinances.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That's odd. I grew up thinking it was.
When was that not true? Did I miss something?
Umm I’m sorry, I thought this was already a right....I must be confused.....you know that 2nd amendment stuff is so hard to comprehend. /s
It’s already a national right. They’ve signaled they are going to stop the government from interferring with that right.
Correct you are...it's the LA times that is full of idiot progressives. The supreme court CAN'T make something a right...they don't have the power to create rights. They can provide a clarification that gun ownership is an individual right, although that shouldn't be necessary as it's clear that was the intent of the founding fathers.
Progressives don't understand the founding of this nation and the source of rights (God). Instead, progressives make a god out of Congress (men).
I’m tickled, not only for gun owners and freedom lovers everywhere, but because this will be a SLAP IN THE FACE to Chicago Mayor and Chief Thug Ritchie Daley, who has been crowing all week about how sure he is that his gun-grabbing laws will be upheld.
They can't MAKE gun ownership a national right!!
It already IS a national right! I believe the issue here is keeping state/city jurisdictions from violating that right.
Alito, Roberts, gun rights.
Thanks to George Bush.
I swear, if this ruling comes down the way I hope it does, I am calling in sick to work, heading to the nearest lib fern bar, and spending the rest of the day drinking and hooting at Mayor Daley as he cries on TV.
The most glaring of which is that they seem to believe that the USSC can "make" rights. I'm sure the LAT thinks the government grants all rights, you know, like any third world dictatorship.
I don’t think that an American citizen’s right to keep and bear arms should be infringed. Under any circumstances. Even felons, once they serve their sentence and meet the conditions of their parole should not be barred from having weapons.
I believe that instead of limiting who may own or carry a gun, that all crimes committed with a fire arm should be severely punished.
Elsewhere in Illinois, you may own a hand gun, you just can't carry it.
I'm ashamed of this backward, liberal state, one of only two in the U.S. with no form of concealed carry.
Right on
While I share your sardonic amazement, in reality, it is remarkable to see how far we've come. If you recall the 1968-1994 era, the success we're now having in rolling back restrictions on gun rights would have read like alt-history fiction.
At that time, you had to sign a register to buy any ammo that could fit a handgun. You couldn't buy a hunting rifle outside your own state. There was no concealed carry to speak of in at least 40 of the states. Handgun bans were passing in cities across the country, and fully automatic weapons had been banned nationwide on an unrecorded voice vote in Congress. It looked like semi-automatic weapons were next. Remember S.747?
As it turned out, a rather toothless and temporary assault weapons ban did get passed, and the Democrats got shellacked as a result in the very next election (1994). That seems to be when the country woke up. It has been one victory after another ever since then, and it seems likely that McDonald will give us our latest and greatest.
In yo' face, Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Howard Metzenbaum, Ted Kennedy, and all the rest!
This is part of the problem with these yahoos. They will very narrowly allow a right but they broadly define (reasonable restrictions) deny a right.
In this particular case, SCOTUS can't even "recognize" a right, merely reaffirm one already it had previously recognized in the Miller decision. The only possible "new" thing it can do is to explicitly rule that the same legal reasoning that it has previously used to assert Federal rights against State power applies in the particular case of the Second Amendment. But that's a foregone conclusion, absent a deliberate twisting/denial of facts and logic by the Justices.
The supreme court doesn’t make anything a right. They just stop other people from infringing on your rights.
Thank you.
It is our right, but, over the years our rights have eroded so badly that the Justices have to come back in and reestablish our rights.
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.