Handgun Ban Upheld By Federal Appeals Court

CHICAGO (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, handing a sharp defeat to the National Rifle Association.

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

Chicago officials immediately praised the decision affirming a ruling in December by U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur.

"We are pleased with this decision because it means that we can continue to enforce our gun ordinance," said city law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle.

Hoyle said she understood the NRA intended to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. NRA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons referred questions to attorney William Howard, who did not immediately return voicemails.

The NRA argued that the Second Amendment makes such local ordinances unconstitutional.

Their lawsuit came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self protection.

The appeals court upheld Shadur's dismissal of the suit on the ground that the Supreme Court's decision dealt with a District of Columbia case - which unlike Chicago and Oak Park is a federal jurisdiction.

Story continues below

The three-judge appeals panel held that the Second Amendment may not be used to overturn local gun ordinances.

Judge Frank Easterbrook said in his nine-page opinion 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.

The opinion was signed by Judges William Bauer and Richard Posner.

A panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor reached a similar conclusion about the reach of the Second Amendment in a case from New York over a state law banning the possession of chuka sticks - a weapon composed of two sticks joined at the ends by a rope or chain.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The court is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between the San Francisco Bay area's Alameda County and gun show promoters.

-ASSOCIATED PRESS

Comments

[DBlake]

Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5450
.

[djkrlsn]

Looks like the gunbanners are losing rather badly

[bliznik70000]

Odd that the argument here is that the bill of rights in no way applies to the states. Seems very disturbing to me that my state can re-interpret or ignore the US constitution as they see fit.

[OdinsEye]

Originally it was held that the first eight ratified amendments of the BoR only applied to the federal government. This was quite clear in the Supreme Court case of Barron vs Baltimore. This was part of the catalyst for the 14th Amendment, the intent of which was to automatically extend the BoR's restriction on the federal government down to the state and local governments, "incorporating" the 14th and the previous amendments. The Supreme Court took a slightly different tack and decided that such an across the board move would create havoc, so they came up with the idea of "selective incorporation" by which the individual rights under the BoR would have to be decided one at a time as the appropriate court cases came before the court. To date, only a couple things have not been incorporated by a Supreme Court case, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms.

[bliznik70000]

Very educational response. Thanks

[onepotatotwopotato]

We need to push for "Full Incorporation and Full Equality."

Meaning the acceptance of full incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights as to the States through the 14th Amendment and full equality of 1st Amendment protection of individual rights and 2nd Amendment protection of those same rights.

It is often stated by the "Anti's" that "Just as 1st Amendment rights are not absolute so neither are our rights under the 2nd Amendment." While it is true that no right is "absolute" it is generally held that while 1st Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restraint there can be no "prior restraint" of those rights, that is no government censorship is allowed before exercising a 1st Amendment right. If someone exercises their 1st Amendment right improperly they may be subject to prosecution after the fact in rare instances.

For instance, the government can outlaw the possession of child pornography but it cannot force you to register your computer or all of the books or periodicals that you own or subscribe to, as that would constitute "prior restraint". You cannot be arrested for possessing an "otherwise legal but unregistered" book, but you can be arrested in some States (not Florida) for possessing an "otherwise legal but unregistered gun."

We must insist that 1st Amendment jurisprudence be applied to the 2nd Amendment and that the 2nd be incorporated as to the States.

[nadin]

"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."
I don't care how you feel about gun control...if you believe the bill of rights doesn't apply to states or localities...then you are anti democratic.

[RickCoMatic]

Back in the year, Seventeen Hundred Eighty Five (1785), ... The State of the Art for a Firearm was a Flintlock or a Musket.

If that is what the Constitution guarantees everyone should be allowed to keep and bare in their homes; I have no problem with the Government issuing a Musket to every citizen of voting age.

Everything else should be subject to regulation.
Everything!

[OdinsEye]

Wow, so the same should apply to TVs, radios, telephones, cell phones, computers, the Internet, home printers, high speed printing presses, satellites, fax machines, email, ball point pens, etc.

Oh, and since several religions did not exist back then, the 1st doesn't apply to them.

[bliznik70000]

Are you implying that a musket is somehow an ineffective weapon for killing people? I think they just require a little more skill and patience to operate. They generally produce the same basic effect on a target as any other firearm.

[djkrlsn]

Getting hit by a 12 gauge lead ball is pretty devastating the last time I checked

[djkrlsn]

Then Rick, I guess you are good with having your phone and electronic communications monitored without a warrant, the government censoring ALL media more advanced than a Guttenburg press or quill pen--if it did not exist in 1790, it is NOT protected by the BOR

[Mark0]

"If that is what the Constitution guarantees everyone should be allowed to keep and bare in their homes..."

What leads you to the belief that the constitution is only applicable in one's home?

[wdw505]

"A well armed society is a polite society."

--- Robert A. Heinlein

[Greg Hay]

"A well armed society is a SCARED society."

[wdw505]

good

[djkrlsn]

I think it is a good idea for criminals to be scared of their potential victims

[bliznik70000]

Personally, I feel much better in potentially dangerous situations when I have some basic capacity to defend myself in an effective manner.

[triplbee]

The Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.

[djkrlsn]

I sure hope so

[PalaceOfWisdom]

Why don't people on both sides get that parsing the Second Amendment isn't the point? Even if you could conclusively prove the founders' intent, they were not infallible and admitted as much.

Chicago bans civilians from possessing firearms. Chicago is the most violent city in America. The ban doesn't work to reduce gun violence. So what good is it?

If we have another regime like Bush/Cheney and they try to impose martial law "for our own good", who will stop them? Gun nuts. I wish guns didn't exist. But since they do, keeping otherwise law abiding citizens from having them makes no sense.

[ChiGuy]

Just as right-wingers will always challenge abortion laws, anti-gun activists will always challenge gun ownership laws.

The difference is, eventually, the SCOTUS will interpret the phrase, "well regulated militia", as exactly what is was intended to mean: A....Well....Regulated.....MILITIA.

[OdinsEye]

Meaning the militia should be regulated, not the people's right to keep and bear arms, right?

[nadin]

I am a progressive, and I think characterizing all gun rights activists as right wingers is offensive and not well thought out...I think having flag issues that define ppl as right wing or left wing is divisive. The primary point keeps coming up. We SHOULD be committed to violence reduction...to ppl not dying. And as a person that has supported, been a part of, and is dedicated to true anti-violence work. I say emphatically that GUN CONTROL does not = a true reduction of violence or murder in our communities. It does = and easy way for a politician pretending to be elected. If we want to stop beiing divisive then we should stop this right wing left wing nonsense and jsut be helpful when it comes to stopping killing

[djkrlsn]

Don't forget that you are a member of the militia if you are a lawabiding adult male U S citizen who is NOT in the military

[atlantajoe]

This is a good ruling, if guns are legal the Chicago area will suffer from gun and drug crimes, why would anyone want that.

[GoldenBoy22]

Ah Yes, we would hate to ruin this GUN FREE utopia that Chicago is now wouldn't we?

[Wadayatink]

If the ban is working, why is it that there have been so many shooting deaths in Chicago this year?

[djkrlsn]

Not to beat a dead horse-but that is the point--all gun bans do is empower criminals

[mat3]

Do you think all the gang members and criminals with guns will now turn them in?

[ChiGuy]

A phony argument.
Unless you can detail for us how "civilian" ownership is a reasonable counter-balance to armed bangers.

[OdinsEye]

You mean like 100,000 to over 2 million successful defensive firearm uses every year?

[atlantajoe]

Does any other right need to be balanced for you to accept it. As far as balancing, many stories in the news about intruders being killed or wounded by homeowners, 3 in Atlanta in the past couple of months.

[mat3]

Break into my house and I'll show you six times.

[Wadayatink]

If its the guns that are the problem why is Chicago one of the worst when it comes to shootings per capita?

[Disuberence]

What about my second amendment right to ki// people?

[OdinsEye]

No such right exists. The Second Amendment defines the right to arms, not a right to kill.

[wdw505]

the castle doctrine does though

[wdw505]

if they come in your house uninvited ask them to leave if they do not leave then fire away

[OdinsEye]

Better know the laws of your state first. In many states in the US, the use of lethal force simply because someone is in your house is not considered justified. In a few states you must retreat, cannot block the invader's exit, and are not allowed to actively confront such an invader.

[onepotatotwopotato]

These "judges" have in effect voted to remove themselves from the bench and from society as well. To say that that Bill of Rights is not incorporated as to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment is to destroy the authority of the federal government to enforce civil rights for all Americans. There can be no right more fundamental to life, liberty and property than the "right to keep and bear arms." Why would you want to share a society with someone you mistrusted so much that you felt the need to first disarm them?

[wdw505]

“A well armed society is a polite society.”

--- Robert A. Heinlein

[ChiGuy]

Remember these words, because eventually, the SCOTUS will interpret them correctly:

"...a well regulated militia..."

[atlantajoe]

all we need to do is to form a militia.

[djkrlsn]

Do not forget that the militia consists of all male citizens at least 18 years old who is not in the military or merchant marine and is not a felon, and since there is a right to effective self defense protected by the 9th amendment--the RKBA is indeed individual and quite broad

[Wadayatink]

"...a well regulated militia..." is refering to the right to not only bear arms but practice routines and exercise so that you are proficient like "...a well regulated militia..."

[wdw505]

time to ammo up

[Ravyn]

Hip hip hooray!

[VOTER]

Ditto.