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 is true. There’s clearly abusive agents within the BATF, much as there are abusive agents inside the FBI. There needs to be a law whereby such abusive agents lose their jobs and their sovereign immunity to civil claims for damages and compensation.
I do beive that may be true. I’ve work hard on some campaigns in NW IL...only to be defeated in the larger cities. Conservative wins in the local towns though.
Just to provide a bit of historical context:
- the anti-gun laws were a reaction to the assassinations that occurred in the 1960’s
- we had another round (pun intended) of anti-gun sentiment following the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan and the severe wounding of James Brady.
- the assassinations contributed to the Europeans’ sense of superiority, since weapons are banned in most EU countries.
I'm sure that there will be another court case on the meaning of the word "infringed," and the Ninth Circuit will rule that "infringed" means "shot all to bloody hell," while the Fifth Circuit will rule that it means "unsullied by government law or regulation," and that glaring conflict between the Circuits will be a key basis for granting certiorari.
Like Heller, this case is not the end of the battle, it's the beginning, though it looks to become a major victory and a foundation for what's to come.
McCain was far from perfect but we could have had Palin as a slam dunk in another few years. Some freepers still don’t get it.
No, it was a guy who doesn't even own a gun who started the process at a time when we were going to lose. Enter Alito and Roberts. Thank you President Bush. It's also only the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association who are taking advantage of Heller. The other gun groups either aren't interested or don't have the funds.
As when SCOTUS rules against him and his 39 pages of gun laws, he's going to have massive cardiac. Or, his head will just explode like a giant zit.
The 2nd option, though fatal, would be a lot funnier to see on the front page the Tribune.
Amen brother!
Eight years of Gore or Kerry could have done in the 2nd A.
No, the justices are about to RECOGNIZE a right that ALWAYS existed, but was previously ignored by Big Government!
Chicago, Cook County and East St. Louis.
This is why I hate lawyers and most judges.
The 2A could not be more clear if you tried wordsmithing it, yet all of these people dance around what it truly means.
Great. It’s recognized that I can own a weapon now. How about the ammunition now?
They aren’t going to “make” diddly.
However, it is good that they affirm the existing God-given right.
The Constitution doesn’t “give” inalienable rights.
They do tend to be "hive creatures", don't they...
It has to do with their inadequacy to take care of themselves.
Bears repeating!
If you want more out of me, you will have to wait until CWII gets rolling in earnest. I don't plan on bleeding too much before then.
No, the justices are about to RECOGNIZE a right that ALWAYS existed, but was previously ignored by Big Government!
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.