Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Signal They're Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right
LATimes ^ | March 02, 2010 | David G. Savage

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: banglist; mcdonaldvchicago; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 03/02/2010 6:30:34 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
To Make Gun Ownership A National Right

That's odd. I grew up thinking it was.

When was that not true? Did I miss something?

2 posted on 03/02/2010 6:31:44 PM PST by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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


3 posted on 03/02/2010 6:34:01 PM PST by Outlaw Woman (If you remove the first Amendment, we'll be forced to move on to the next one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s already a national right. They’ve signaled they are going to stop the government from interferring with that right.


4 posted on 03/02/2010 6:34:16 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
That's odd. I grew up thinking it was.

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).

5 posted on 03/02/2010 6:35:40 PM PST by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


6 posted on 03/02/2010 6:35:57 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
!!!!

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.

7 posted on 03/02/2010 6:36:30 PM PST by Aarchaeus (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Alito, Roberts, gun rights.

Thanks to George Bush.


8 posted on 03/02/2010 6:38:43 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

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.


9 posted on 03/02/2010 6:40:11 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
I love the LAT headline; so many things wrong about it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry (for my country).

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.

10 posted on 03/02/2010 6:41:33 PM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


11 posted on 03/02/2010 6:42:36 PM PST by Bad Jack Bauer (Fat and Bald? I was BORN fat and bald, thank you very much!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
All posters are incorrect.

It's an Inalienable Right, meaning a natural right. This dog and pony show shouldn't even be necessary.
12 posted on 03/02/2010 6:42:46 PM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Of U.S. cities, only Chicago and its Oak Park suburb have total bans on handguns.

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.

13 posted on 03/02/2010 6:44:08 PM PST by Graybeard58 ("0bama's not just stupid; He’s Jimmy Carter stupid”. - Don Imus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Alito, Roberts, gun rights. Thanks to George Bush.

Right on

14 posted on 03/02/2010 6:47:20 PM PST by Outlaw Woman (If you remove the first Amendment, we'll be forced to move on to the next one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
When was that not true? Did I miss something?

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!

15 posted on 03/02/2010 6:50:31 PM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
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.

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.

16 posted on 03/02/2010 6:51:50 PM PST by School of Rational Thought (Most interesting man in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
SCOTUS can't "make" something a right. It can only recognize a right. In fact, with the exception of political rights (aka "civil rights"), the Constitution can't "make" something a right, either. Nor can Congress. The reason is the same in all cases: Each person already has all the natural rights that will ever exist, as an inevitable consequence of being a human person.

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.

17 posted on 03/02/2010 6:52:32 PM PST by sourcery (The layoffs, tax increases and wealth redistribution will continue until morale improves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The supreme court doesn’t make anything a right. They just stop other people from infringing on your rights.


18 posted on 03/02/2010 6:53:34 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad Jack Bauer

Thank you.


19 posted on 03/02/2010 6:54:18 PM PST by sfimom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


20 posted on 03/02/2010 6:56:57 PM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson