| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities. “The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois. The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington. “We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.” “We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.” Second Amendment Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense. “Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.” Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted. Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies. Following Precedent Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove. That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states. An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote. The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments. Applicable Law A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties. Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property. Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome. “This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview. “This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said. The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). So, the first amendment is universal but the second amendment isn't???? That doesnt even makes sense to me. The States ratified the Constitution, which means, they agreed to it. No??? Only parts of it? (Message edited by Ferris_von_bueller on June 02, 2009) | ||
| Bandm |
Doesn't seem to be working. Chicago had seven shooting deaths in 24 hours this weekend, and police say they have no suspects in custody. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=297588 When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
This will be overturned by the Supreme Court. | ||
| Dbird29 |
I thought Court was just a simple construction worker. | ||
| Froggy |
He just graduated from Columbia U, so now he is Supreme Court. He is a simple construction worker by day, and by night he is (was?) saving the world from evildoing dealers. Either way I hope this gets overturned. | ||
| X1_ |
Welcome to Illinois please check you rights at the door, well unless you want to ride with no helmet you can do that. Your stupid but you can do that. Chicago ruins this state. | ||
| Ourdee |
State is already ruined. Chicago is the bad apple. Court has a new song,"Call your Authorized Buell Dealer". | ||
| Bill0351 |
The Supreme Court's decision on this one will have huge impacts on legislation all across the United States. I don't see how it's constitutional. On the surface it looks like nearly exactly the same issues already decided by the Supreme Court. In a way, it's almost better that it was upheld by the Court of Appeals. That way a Supreme Court decision can end up as what should be the final nail in this line of legal reasoning's coffin. This is an issue I would like to see put to rest. | ||
| Indybuell |
I agree. The Supreme Court should overturn this decision pretty quickly. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Welcome to the Club, Seattle passed theirs last year. Just one more reason I only pass through | ||
| Court |
>>>Doesn't seem to be working. Even a construction worker is smart enough to know that trying to stop crime by banning guns is like trying to stop sex by banning babies. >>>>Court has a new song,"Call your Authorized Buell Dealer". Indeed I do. It's time. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
How about a free handgun with tank holster & a bulletproof riding jacket, with every new Buell. Or you can have the equivalent value in accessories if you're not into guns. Just throwing the idea out there, I take no responsibility for any consequenses howsoever caused, terms & conditions apply, consult your authorized Court before purchasing. | ||
| Hdbobwithabuell |
"How about a free handgun* with tank holster & a bulletproof riding jacket, with every new Buell. " * Chicago residents will receive two bullet proof riding jackets in place of the handgun | ||
| Shupe |
So, the first amendment is universal but the second amendment isn't???? That doesnt even makes sense to me. The States ratified the Constitution, which means, they agreed to it. No??? Only parts of it? Actually, the Bill of Rights was originally understood to be applicable only to the Federal Gov't, as in "Congress shall pass no law". For example, while the Federal Gov't was banned by the 1st amendment from imposing an official religion on the country, states were free to do so, and some did have "official" religions. It wasn't so much that the Bill of Rights was meant to exclude the states, but rather it was an understanding that the National Gov't (and its Constitution) could not impose such restrictions on the states. The Constitution was meant to limit the power of the Federal Gov't by stating what it could do, and that it could do no more than that. It wasn't until the 14th amendment, passed after the War Between the States, that called for "equal protection under the law" that the courts began to interpret this to mean that the Bill of Rights was applicable to the state and local governments. |
