Dial 1911 for Help
30th September 2009, 12:24
The Supreme Court announced this morning it will hear a challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions that will determine if local handgun bans are legal.
Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.
Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.
But the court said today it will review a lower court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. That action court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. The case will be argued next year.
With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.
"All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all."
If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.
City officials were not immediately available for comment.
In the high court's decision in June of last year, it ruled 5-4 for the first time that the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense, not only as part of a state militia.
Mayor Richard Daley immediately condemned the court's decision and vowed to fight any attempt to invalidate the city's now 27-year-old gun ban.
Hours after the court's decision, the Illinois State Rifle Association sued Chicago and Daley in an attempt to overturn the ban.
One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.
After the court ruled in the Washington, D.C., case, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Evanston and Winnetka dropped their gun bans, in large measure to fend off costly lawsuits.
In the McDonald case, 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 2nd Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.
The high court took his suggestion today.
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.
------------------
Breaking news "Liberals discover states rights"
Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.
Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.
But the court said today it will review a lower court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. That action court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. The case will be argued next year.
With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.
"All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all."
If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.
City officials were not immediately available for comment.
In the high court's decision in June of last year, it ruled 5-4 for the first time that the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense, not only as part of a state militia.
Mayor Richard Daley immediately condemned the court's decision and vowed to fight any attempt to invalidate the city's now 27-year-old gun ban.
Hours after the court's decision, the Illinois State Rifle Association sued Chicago and Daley in an attempt to overturn the ban.
One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.
After the court ruled in the Washington, D.C., case, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Evanston and Winnetka dropped their gun bans, in large measure to fend off costly lawsuits.
In the McDonald case, 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 2nd Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.
The high court took his suggestion today.
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.
------------------
Breaking news "Liberals discover states rights"