High Court To Look At Local Gun Control Laws

Source: Associated Press

(09-30) 07:16 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/0...

Except when the issue can be used to inflame the electorate. Expect frantic fund raising letters to go out from the NRA based on this case.

Bill of Rights Supporters are for the "local rule" in cases where the Constitution is silent.
Liberals and Democrats should be the same way.

The 2nd Amendment gives a clear right to the people.
As does the first.

Would you have issue with a local city ordinance that forbade freedom of speech, and forced everybody to go worship according to the City's designated religion?

in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

except the ones specifically mentioned in the constitution as being under federal jurisdiction. The 2nd is one that is not delegated to the states.

It's about time to restore the civil rights of Chicago residents.

the crime and murder rate would drop significantly.

Chicagoans have alot of guns. And they are using them on each other. That's why they are trying to get rid of the guns. What you are probably alluding to WHICH chicagoans have guns. The ones you'd like to arm would tend to INCREASE the number of folks dying, they just wouldn't necessarily all be "murders". But trust me, the folks currently use them have no problems with getting into a gun fight. In fact, they'll be just as likely to shoot sooner than later, being concerned that the target is now armed. The only question really is are you trying to reduce the number of deaths, or murders.

each other, they are criminals, dah. Oh they are trying to get rid of the guns, the only guns they are getting rid of are the ones owned by law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a rats ass if you make all guns illegal they will keep theirs. Yes I am alluding to WHICH Chicagoans the law breakers and the ones that obey the law. I don't give a damn about a criminals death it's the their victims.

The whole concept of selective incorporation needs to be revisited. It's a legacy of discrimination and bias.

But I am hopeful.

we had 6 women. Myself I may never actually use my CCW it's just uncomfortable and inconvenient to carry a gun. I'll bet every one of those ladies has one in their purse now, they carry everything but the kitchen sink in those things a gun shouldn't be any problem.

I've had some fairly aggressive panhandlers approach me but nothing serious. I'm concerned that a woman feeling a bit scared at being approached by, say, a homeless man, might let him have it.

I prefer pepper spray.

shoot a panhandler. Can you cite any instance where that actually happened? I could find hundreds of cases where people have saved their life or others with CCW, several such cases are posted here on DU every week. We heard all your arguments before we had CCW in Ohio, the gun grabbers said we would have blood in the streets. Illinois and Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America and it is no safer than other states that are armed to the teeth.

you need to defend your life use your CCW. Pepper spray will only piss off a crackhead and make him more likely to kill you.

As long as the weapons that people have match the weapons the Framers were talking about when they wrote the Constitution. Muzzle loading black powder muskets. I have no problem with those.

Or at least the National Archives if you want to make broad brushed statements like that.

Not to mention the idea is silly on many different levels. Would you limit freedom of the press to moveable type block presses?

The first amendment was talking about the concept of speech. Not the transmission method like a printing press.

Was the Girandoni available in America?

But there were some in the US, certainly. Meriwether Lewis carried one, for one notable example. The rifle was fully capable of felling a deer, to say nothing of human beings.

And the analogy is perfect. The press is one conveyance of free speech. Individual models of firearms are inclusive of the right to keep and bear arms.

Now you've compounded your analogy FAIL with a logic FAIL.

The Framers didn't say "Free Speech from a printing press", they said "Free Speech".

I trust I'm not typing too fast for you to understand...?

They also said 'Keep and bear arms'.

Not flintlocks. Not breech loaders. Not even cannons (which were privately owned). Arms.


They wanted the people to have free speech.
They wanted the people to remain armed.

Both mechanisms serve to keep the populace free. As do the others, such as due process, and the right not to be forced to self-incriminate.

There is no constitutional limit on the means in which we project free speech.
There is no constitutional limit on the types of small arms we may possess.

Now you're rewriting the 2nd Amendment. Where does it say "small arms"?

Which is why firearms enthusiasts generally accept the division of crew served weapons and destructive devices from firearms (small arms).

Why do 2nd Amendment people think that only weapons that match exactly what the gun lobby wants to endorse match the 2nd Amendment - and nothing more or less?

Pretty obvious flaw to me in their thinking to me, but then I'm a logical thinker.

You're arguing in circles.

Either answer my point, or just say "I have no answer for you, I just choose to believe what I believe"

Obviously you're talking about eight justices from more than one court. Thus, I am also AGREEING with a number of SC justices - the ones who wrote dissenting opinions against the opinions of those eight.

You don't know just how logical I am.

We don't have Sotomayor's opinon on this issue yet.

It wasn't.

Even Stevens acknowledges it- see here- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Four justices dissented, with lots of other arguments besides the one you linked to.

I still don't have an answer to why only gun lobby approved guns (.50 caliber semi-automatics) are OK but nothing more. Where, and more importantly, how is/was that dividing line determined???

Nice.

Other guns are legal, as you've been schooled in elsewhere in this thread- they just require more paperwork.

Guns below a certain line? only a form 4473 / background check.
Guns above that line? NFA tax stamp & paperwork.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. If you look at my initial posts in this thread, they say "why can't I buy bombs and tanks?" (Look for the 'OK, great' posts from me)

I'm still curious why you can buy only gun lobby approved guns (.50 caliber semi-automatics) but nothing more. Breyer's dissent in Heller makes my point exactly. Do you have an answer for this SPECIFIC question?

You persist in making that asinine statement as though it has some validity or meaning.

Firearms below a certain point- limited paperwork (semi-autos, shotguns, rifles > 16" below .51 caliber)
Firearms above that point - more paperwork. (one set of paperwork for suppressors, full autos, short barreled guns; another set of paperwork for DD (destructive devices) / AOW (Any other Weapon))

You say one can buy ANY gun. But you're STILL not addressing my point. Where is the paperwork located to buy a fighter jet?

See the post below about Star Trek's Michael Dorn who owns a few fighter jets.

I can buy a working 280MM howitzer? Show me the paperwork for that one.

the ammunition might be an issue though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtRQHyPlbSc&feature=rec-...

for instance, most of the flintlock muskets of old EXCEED .50 caliber. Some exceed .70 cal.

It's possible to own both fully automatic weapons, AND destructive devices like working RPG's, 20mm cannon, large ordnance like civil war cannons, all in working condition.

I have looked at all the links given to me about owning big weapons, and it turns out none of them allow the things you claim. They allow non-working tanks. They allow mining explosives. They allow non-working weapons.

I still can't find anything saying an American can own the things you're claiming.

Weapons are regulated by _class_ not by model number.

Automatic weapons, short barreled devices, suppressors, etc are regulated by Class III/Title II restrictions.

Destructive devices (M203 grenades, grenade launchers, 20mm anti-tank rounds, tank guns, mortars, etc) are under another set of regulations that are also part of the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act).

If you can't find one for sale, or one mentioned specifically in the ATF site, you seem to be assuming that it's illegal- the law doesn't work that way. That which isn't prohibited, is legal. Again, regulations are based on class.

So you're saying if somebody buys a working, fully destructive tank, they won't get arrested?

r. It applies to the 80mm main gun of a Sherman. The fact it's mounted to a Sherman tank is immaterial. The tank is legal to own with no permits required. The GUN, in non-demilled condition requires the permits.

I wish we could provide you with something that states in black and white what you are asking for, but unfortunately, firearms permits for anything 'beyond the norm' are subject to a mishmash of federal and state law, and it's all arcane bullshit. You just about need a lawyer to interpret it all for you.

For instance, a flame thrower, which seems like an incredibly destructive device, straight out of WWII, would be regulated as agricultural equipment. Firearms laws are a mess. It's hard to know what is legal and what is not, and the penalty for being wrong is extreme.

You just made my point for me.

What you can, and cannot, own, is totally subjective. Nothing to do with the Constitution.

You _can_ own all those things, with varying amounts of paperwork and effort, some states' regulations notwithstanding.

You don't understand how well your post illustrated my thesis. That's OK.

Again, two can play at this game. No one ever said the right to own whatever firearm is absolute and not subject to any reasonable regulation. We've accepted so much regulation one cannot possibly memorize it all. Just like the First is limited by obscenity law, slander or libel, and even threatening or hate speech.

You'd be hard pressed to justify limiting firearms ownership at 1791 levels.

One court says one thing is OK or banned, and the next court overturns that.

So gun arguments based on the 2nd Amendment are ridiculous, since the court has interpreted and re-interpreted that Amendment a zillion times in a zillion different ways.

Surely you've followed hate speech legislation, and 'OMG YOU CAN'T BURN THE FLAG RRAARGH!!' prohibitions, and their overturn, etc.

I would guess the First and Second amendments have nearly equal time sitting in courts, and have comparable reversals, and re-interpretations.


The 2nd isn't as 'overturned' as you think. Each decision clarifies or narrows the scope. It's pretty well defined, as to what we can have now.

I never said it was "overturned". I said that using it as an argument is beyond specious at this point.

The only value it has circa 2009 is as an excuse for people who love guns, or want guns, to own them.

The amount of legal triangulation made to the 1st is ultra-microscopic as compared to the amount done on the 2nd.

There is a distinct lack of SCOTUS jurisprudence around the second amendment, as compared to the first, and most others.

There's only a handful of cases pertaining directly with the second. I was really surprised at that.

OK, change it to thousands. My point still stands. Sheesh.

I was talking about the morass of laws & regulations that apply to weapons, not just SC decisions.

My point is that the 2nd Amendment has little to do with it anymore, and it is a joke whenever the gun lobby uses it as an excuse for their love of guns.