Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Chicago Gun Ban
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13103
Page 1 of 1

Author:  tman065 [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Chicago Gun Ban

Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Handguns in Chicago

by the Associated Press

Quote:
CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park.

The three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms is not an adequate basis for lawsuits attacking local gun ordinances.

The National Rifle Associated argued the Second Amendment makes such ordinances unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a District of Columbia case that the Second Amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self protection. The appeals court upheld dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that the District of Columbia, unlike Chicago and Oak Park, is a federal jurisdiction.



For some reason, I didn't get any warm fuzzies from reading this, nor did I get a tingle up my leg.

:roll:

Author:  Dick Unger [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 

The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS.

HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

Yeah not fuzzy.

Author:  Jeremiah [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:53 am ]
Post subject: 

To quote a friend of mine- "That's a special kind of stupid, right there."

:evil:

Author:  jdege [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Dick Unger wrote:
HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

There have been two separate excuses for courts to claim that the 2nd wasn't relevant to state cases. 1, that it doesn't protect an individual right, and 2, that it doesn't apply to the states.

The 9th Circus had established a clear precedent that #1. And Heller clearly established that #1 was false. So the 9th Circus quite properly recognized that their prior precedent had been overturned. And apparently, there was no established precedent with regard to #2, so they reviewed #2 and held that it was false. Which makes them the second circuit to adopt that position - the 5th did so in Emerson a few years back.

Other circuits do have established precedents with respect to #2, and overturning a precedent simply because it was wrongly and fraudulently established (the Case and Tot cases that established this line of precedents were clear examples of making it up as you go along) isn't something that courts like to do. So they pass the buck.

Author:  mrokern [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:44 am ]
Post subject: 

jdege wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

There have been two separate excuses for courts to claim that the 2nd wasn't relevant to state cases. 1, that it doesn't protect an individual right, and 2, that it doesn't apply to the states.

The 9th Circus had established a clear precedent that #1. And Heller clearly established that #1 was false. So the 9th Circus quite properly recognized that their prior precedent had been overturned. And apparently, there was no established precedent with regard to #2, so they reviewed #2 and held that it was false. Which makes them the second circuit to adopt that position - the 5th did so in Emerson a few years back.

Other circuits do have established precedents with respect to #2, and overturning a precedent simply because it was wrongly and fraudulently established (the Case and Tot cases that established this line of precedents were clear examples of making it up as you go along) isn't something that courts like to do. So they pass the buck.


Somebody's going to have to take this back up the judicial ladder again until SCOTUS defines their decision in more detail.

-Mark

Author:  djeepp [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?

Author:  mrokern [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

djeepp wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


SCOTUS decisions are normally very narrow. The Court may only consider the issues brought directly before it, and in Heller the ruling only directly applied to the DC laws. Technically DC is not a state...hence the current fun.

One of the state cases will have to make it up the queue and be heard.

-Mark

Author:  djeepp [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

mrokern wrote:
djeepp wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


SCOTUS decisions are normally very narrow. The Court may only consider the issues brought directly before it, and in Heller the ruling only directly applied to the DC laws. Technically DC is not a state...hence the current fun.

One of the state cases will have to make it up the queue and be heard.

-Mark


I was referring more to the second sentence.

Anyone want to take bets that the state in question will be Montana?

Author:  kecker [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

The basis for federalism and states rights is the 10th amendment which states that:

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The 2nd amendment, and Heller upheld this, that firearms ownership are an individual right. Therefore it's been specifically prohibited from the states.

While Heller allowed that SOME regulation was allowed, it did specifically prohibit blanket bans, which this falls under.

Given all that, I don't see how one could rationally come to a conclusion other than that this ruling is completely wrong and will be overturned if heard by SCOTUS.

And since Roberts is still Chief Justice, I would guess it has a better than average change.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/