Cert granted in Chicago gun case

[mons meg]

This is kind of a big deal.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-rule-on-gun-rights-terrorism-law/print/

Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” - a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.

The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue - two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases - McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) - a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) - a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.


.....snip

 

[tiredofit]

this should be very interesting and probably will affect us all. I would expect dodomayor to issue her opinion/vote as the anti-gunner she seems to be. Hopefully she'll surprise me...

 

[EFsDad]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_guns

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago

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.

 

[buckeye]

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

What? Come again?

 

[buckeye]

Fortunately for us, she brings wisdom unavailable to most.

Heavens be praised.

 

[mons meg]

I should mention that if the Chicago ban is struck down and the 2A is "incorporated", potentially all hell could break loose, legally speaking.

In a good way.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

THIS is where the rubber meets the road boys... this is a HUGE deal. Glad to hear it. For the record, Easterbrook is an idiot.

 

[vvvvvvv]

My flaming liberal friends are already screaming.

 

[Talacker]

If the strict gun laws in Chicago are overturned, that city could turn into a real nasty and violent place.

 

[bettingpython]

My greater concern is if they uphold the chicago ban it opens the door for reversal of state preemption gun laws. This was a huge issue in Denver and the state of Colorado preempted muncipalities from passing restrictions on firearms after a CCW holder was arrested and convicted in that city.

I certainly hope this is winnable.