Supreme Court to look at 2nd again

[mbw]

High court to look at local gun control laws

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
Sept. 30, 2009, 9:18AM

WASHINGTON — 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."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote. Evaluating arguments over the extension of the Second Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.

The high court took his suggestion Wednesday. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, was part of a three-judge panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January. Judges on both courts — Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York — said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.

The New York ruling also has been challenged, but the court did not act on it Wednesday. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court. Although the issue is the same in the Chicago case, there is no ethical bar to her participation in its consideration by the Supreme Court. Several Republican senators cited the Sotomayor gun ruling, as well as her reticence on the topic at her confirmation hearing, in explaining their decision to oppose her confirmation to the high court.

The case will be argued next year. The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

[joe817]

So it has begun. I pray the pro 2A advocates will prevail. Since SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, anyone care to speculate when the case will be put on its docket? I'd love to follow this from beginning to end.

Does SCOTUS provide webcasts of its proceedings?

[chamberc]

It is slated for January/February.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

joe817:

No, don't think so. SCOTUS has generally been resistant to media taping either
audio or video during proceedings.

So, a webcast would appear to be out of the question.

SIA

[joe817]

Thanks chambers.

Some interesting things come up when you google the case. One is the SCOTUS docket:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An interesting line showed up, and I'm not sure what it means:

"Jul 6 2009 Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. "

Can anyone interpret this for me, and what it implies as how Texas is is involved?

[pbwalker]

I'm looking forward to see how our new "Pro 2A" justice votes...

[seamusTX]

The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow third-party audio recording or cameras (not even still cameras) during its proceedings. They produce audio recordings. In high-profile cases, those recordings are sometimes released the same day.

This site is fairly even-handed and obsessive about covering SCOTUS. However, the writing sometimes assumes a level of legal expertise that makes it difficult to understand: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are some other sites that are definitely pro-RKBA:
http://volokh.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://armsandthelaw.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the most important 2nd-amendment case in half a century. Either the 2nd is going to be incorporated on the states, or it never will be.

"Jul 6 2009 Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. "

This is probably a reference to the amicus filing written by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and other attorneys general.

I don't know that VIDED means in SCOTUS jargon.

- Jim

[joe817]

Thanks SIA & Jim.

In looking at the SCOTUS blog, I find: "The Court will schedule all of Wednesday’s[edit:today, 9/30/09] grants for oral argument no earlier than the January sitting, which begins on Jan. 11."

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the most important 2nd-amendment case in half a century. Either the 2nd is going to be incorporated on the states, or it never will be.

I agree.

[JJVP]

Thanks chambers.

Some interesting things come up when you google the case. One is the SCOTUS docket:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An interesting line showed up, and I'm not sure what it means:

"Jul 6 2009 Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. "

Can anyone interpret this for me, and what it implies as how Texas is is involved?

Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.

I believe this is the brief sited : http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-conten ... _stage.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[joe817]

Many thanks for posting that JJVP ! That's what I was hoping to find and you provided it. A most fascinating read, and well worth taking the time to do so. And thanks for defining those terms.

This is indeed a historical case that has far reaching consequences.

[TxD]

Two more articles today.

"Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_ ... court_guns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01 ... ml?_r=1&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chamberc]

I can't imagine anything other than a victory for our side, but then again I was shocked at Heller being 5-4.

[TxD]

Here's another one from the Chicago Trib.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/ste ... n-ban.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the city's many criminals. It's bad news for Mayor Daley and other supporters of the existing ban on handguns, one of the most draconian in the nation. Chicago has long behaved as though gun owners don't have any rights. It is probably going to find out they do."

[Mithras61]

Here's another one from the Chicago Trib.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/ste ... n-ban.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The 2nd Amendment is about to arrive in Chicago--which is good news for citizens who see a need to have a handgun in the home for protection against the city's many criminals. It's bad news for Mayor Daley and other supporters of the existing ban on handguns, one of the most draconian in the nation. Chicago has long behaved as though gun owners don't have any rights. It is probably going to find out they do."

Its amusing to read some of the comments back on that. Surprising how many people think Chicagoans' problems with criminals are a result of less restrictive laws in the surrounding community. I guess they have never seen the FBI Uniform Crime Report or any of the other reports indicating that crime trends down as weapons laws are made less restrictive.

There was one fool who even had the audacity to cite one of the many "keeping hand guns in your home increases your likelihood of dying" studies. I almost posted the link to the many sites on the Internet that discuss the various fatal flaws that each of the studies have (some across all the studies, some unique to the specific study, but all of them are useless in statistical terms), but decided that anyone who is that much a believer in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Ownership won't bother to read/understand facts.

[BigBlueDodge]

The way I see it, this will drift from being a gun rights issue, to more of a states right vs federal right issue. Sure the issue at had is related to guns, but the larger issue is can the federal government force states to change their laws. While gun ownership will be a core tenet, I think alot of states will argue that they should decide what is best for their citizens, and not the federal goverment.