| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right |
| 2010-03-03 |
| 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. 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. Two years ago, the justices in a 5-4 decision struck down a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia -- a federal enclave -- saying for the first time that the federal government is restrained by the 2nd Amendment from preventing an individual from having a gun for self-defense. In the Chicago case, the court is weighing whether to extend that protection to state and local jurisdictions. In the ruling two years ago, the court also said reasonable regulations of guns were permitted in the District of Columbia. The tenor of Tuesday's argument suggested it may take years of lawsuits to draw a line between an individual's right to have a gun for self-defense and the government's authority to set reasonable regulations. Since 1982, Chicago has enforced a strict ban on handguns, even for law-abiding residents who want to keep one at home. The city's lawyer argued Tuesday that throughout American history, cities and states have enforced restrictions on weapons without much interference from federal judges. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," and cities need to regulate them to protect the public's safety, James A. Feldman said. But he ran into skeptical questions from the court's leading conservatives, who referred to their decision in the Washington, D.C., case. Shortly after that decision, gun rights advocates sued to challenge Chicago's ban on behalf of Otis McDonald and several other city residents. The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Does the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government's authority over guns and state militias, or does it also give citizens nationwide a right to challenge their local and state gun laws? Since the District of Columbia is a not a state, the court's ruling in D.C. vs. Heller left that issue unresolved. But during Tuesday's arguments, the justices who formed the majority in the D.C. case said they had already decided that gun rights deserved national protection. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the individual right to bear arms is a "fundamental" right, like the other protections in the Bill of Rights. "If it's not fundamental, then Heller is wrong," he said, referring to the D.C. ruling, which he joined. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the same theme. At one point, Justice John Paul Stevens proposed a narrow ruling in favor of gun rights. Two years ago, he dissented and said the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect a state's power to have a "well regulated militia." Now, however, Stevens said the court could rule that residents had a right to a gun at home, but not a right "to parade around the street with a gun." A lawyer representing the National Rifle Assn. scoffed at the idea and opposed a "watered-down version" of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia also questioned the idea. In his opinion two years ago, he described the right to bear arms as a right to "carry" a weapon in cases of "confrontation." Such a right would not be easily limited to having a gun at home. The justices will meet behind closed doors to vote this week on the case of McDonald vs. Chicago. It may be late June before they issue a written ruling. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #10 Most people don't even know the names of the Supreme Court justices, abu do you love, let alone what they look like, nor do their private lives make the news. To people who believe in abortion, killing something that looks rather like a tadpole does not resonate in the same way as killing a person capable of walking independently, so the one does not work as training for the other, no matter how you feel about it. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-03-03 23:45 |
| #9 I pray that I am wrong, but I suspect that I am not and we may soon see ideology driven assassination of the SC justices as a means to the ends of the left. If it comes to that we will see ideology driven assassinations of leftists in response. |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-03-03 23:09 |
| #8 I pray that I am wrong, but I suspect that I am not and we may soon see ideology driven assassination of the SC justices as a means to the ends of the left. When the end justifies any means (as with the left) there is no level of depravity beyond them. They already kill their own (unborn) offspring for the convenience of their lifestyle. How much more would they do to keep/gain power? |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-03-03 22:22 |
| #7 If this turns out to be a 5-4 vote, I'm going to be Praying for the health of our Justices for the next 3 years at least. |
| Posted by: Charles 2010-03-03 21:57 |
| #6 Shouldn't have ducked the issue in Heller. With Heller they only addressed hand gun ownership. That's settling only for a slice of the pie. The real right is for the same technology weapon that the military issues to its line personnel. That is the whole pie. Swiss militia model. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-03 19:02 |
#5 The New York Times:The Supreme CourtÂ’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other peopleÂ’s guns. Assuming for the moment that's true (and it isn't), what about Chicago's total ban is 'carefully drawn'? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-03-03 18:58 |
| #4 The trouble is that the people can no longer rely on the SCOTUS, because whenever there is a shift to a liberal dominated SCOTUS, they have made it clear that the rules and precedents observed by conservatives no long apply to them. The memory of the abuses of the Warren and Burger courts should not be so easily forgotten. They laid the groundwork for the entire concept of "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench." We are still under the onus of many of their bad decisions, and even the sitting liberal justices have made it clear that if they assume power, they will reopen what is now profoundly settled law, decide cases with respect to what foreign courts have done, and continue the process of unbridled federal power at the expense of the States and the people. Liberals were very crafty to include indoctrination in the public schools, with the idea of undermining American beliefs and rights in the long term. So this should be the stage for the next fight by the gun movement, to restore the liberty of American gun culture and its perspectives to our children. So that when they are of their majority, they will be ready to pick up where we left off, and continue the fight. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-03 18:43 |
| #3 Shouldn't have ducked the issue in Heller. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2010-03-03 17:36 |
| #2 About time. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-03 17:31 |
| #1 Justices signal they're ready to |
| Posted by: Dopey Hupeter7454 2010-03-03 16:30 |