BREAKING: Justices Rule That 2nd Amendment Also Governs State and Local Gun Laws

[bettingpython]

reading the decision now, thought this was an interesting interperation of Chicago and Oak Parks oppposition to the case.

Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to beincorporated into the Due Process Clause.

 

[inactive]

I'm pleased, but it irks me that they keep saying "Second Amendment right"
The Second Amendment does not confer any rights upon the citizens of these United States.

That's really the whole issue at hand here, isn't it?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

so what does this all mean?

Ha! Great question. Who knows. At a minimum, it means that blanket bans on handgun posession in the home are struck down everywhere, and it means a lot of subsequent challenges testing the limits of the constitutionality of state/local laws' restricting guns in various ways will be filed, and hashed out for decades and decades to come.

 

[inactive]

Ha! Great question. Who knows. At a minimum, it means that blanket bans on handgun possession in the home are struck down everywhere, and it means a lot of subsequent challenges testing the limits of the constitutionality of state/local laws' restricting guns in various ways will be filed, and hashed out for decades and decades to come.

Yes. What it means is the District Court must now rehear the case, but likely will have to state that the ban is no longer constitutional per this decision and Heller.

For residents of Chicago it likely means that handgun ownership is now not restricted, but will likely be greatly restricted and great bureaucracy and red tape will be required to own one, similar to NYC. I suspect it will take a second decision (like the pending NYC case) to reshape that.

 

[donner]

wait, i thought the decision merely remanded the case to the appeals court. Meaning the Chicago law wasn't struck down directly, but that the lower court will have to reevaluate the case and that this decision means the chicago ban will have to be held as unconstitutional.

From the latest NYtimes article

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

 

[MaddSkillz]

wait, i thought the decision merely remanded the case to the appeals court. Meaning the Chicago law wasn't struck down directly, but that the lower court will have to reevaluate the case and that this decision means the chicago ban will have to be held as unconstitutional.

From the latest NYtimes article

So essentially, "we all know it's untconstitutional, yet we need to try the case again to know for sure."

Politics are so silly.

 

[inactive]

wait, i thought the decision merely remanded the case to the appeals court. Meaning the Chicago law wasn't struck down directly, but that the lower court will have to reevaluate the case and that this decision means the chicago ban will have to be held as unconstitutional.

From the latest NYtimes article

Correct. I haven't made it through all 214 pages of the decision, but basically it said the lower court must rehear the case and consider the Heller v DC case in it's decision, and specifically this component of the Heller case:

Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

 

[mhphoto]

Yes. What it means is the District Court must now rehear the case, but likely will have to state that the ban is no longer constitutional per this decision and Heller.

For residents of Chicago it likely means that handgun ownership is now not restricted, but will likely be greatly restricted and great bureaucracy and red tape will be required to own one, similar to NYC. I suspect it will take a second decision (like the pending NYC case) to reshape that.

I read an article a few days ago (wish I could find it) that quoted Mayor Daley as saying something close to "we have a plan to take car of guns in the city if the Supreme Court should strike the ban down". Basically he went on to say that there would be an ungodly amount of red tape and bureaucracy to go through to get a handgun there, just like there currently is in Washington DC. Permits, paperwork, fees. It all adds up, and it shows. According to the article (again, wish I could find it to post) only something like 800 applications have come in since their ban was struck down a few years ago.

 

[inactive]

I read an article a few days ago (wish I could find it) that quoted Mayor Daley as saying something close to "we have a plan to take car of guns in the city if the Supreme Court should strike the ban down". Basically he went on to say that there would be an ungodly amount of red tape and bureaucracy to go through to get a handgun there, just like there currently is in Washington DC. Permits, paperwork, fees. It all adds up, and it shows. According to the article (again, wish I could find it to post) only something like 800 applications have come in since their ban was struck down a few years ago.

Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37907626/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

[mhphoto]

Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37907626/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Thanks you sir. That look on his face his hilarious.