NRA Appealing Chicago Handgun Ban To Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area, setting the stage for another high court battle over Second Amendment protections for gun owners.

The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's gun rights decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia applies as well to local and state laws.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes almost immediately after a federal appeals court in Chicago said Tuesday that it is bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions which held the Second Amendment applies only to federal laws. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of an appeals court 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 framers of the Constitution intended "to protect the right to keep and bear arms and other rights from state infringement," the NRA said in a filing made available at the court Thursday.

One federal appeals panel, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, has ruled that the Second Amendment does apply broadly. That court, however, is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between Alameda County and gun show promoters.

In the case now pending at the Supreme Court, 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 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.

Chicago officials said they were pleased with the appeals court ruling and would defend the local laws in front of the Supreme Court, if the justices agree to hear the NRA's case.

Any decision about that probably won't come earlier than late September.

The case is National Rifle Association v. Chicago, 08-1497.

Comments

[Cogs]

Why the heck is a rifle group arguing on behalf of handgun owners? Shouldn't the ban be challenged by some pistol packin' mommas?

[djkrlsn]

Since the NRA is one of the dominant groups involved in teaching firearm topics to LEOs, being involved is logical (especially since gun banners have a long history of trying to do things incrementally)

[Totto]

So, it's RPG's for everyone, NRA? Or don't they "turn you on"?

[Chitownfool]

An RPG isn't a pistol, this is about pistols not rpg's your being ridiculus

[Totto]

The contraction for "you are" is "you're". Has to have bullets to be exciting, doesn't it?

[djkrlsn]

Totto-=-why is it the only people talking about owning RPGs, nukes and WMDs are the same people that would deny me the right to own regular self defense and sporting firearms?

[Chitownfool]

GANGSTA CITY!

[djkrlsn]

In case you haven't noticed--the current gun laws TURNED Chicago into your gangsta city

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

The NRA fails to realize the certain areas in america have no need to allow people to carry weapons. But let me under stand this how many minorities are members of the NRA. It is just a question.

[Chitownfool]

Why is it that Pookie and Snoop Snoop and the other thugs can have a pistol because their criminals but I can't? If the pistols out on the street where legal they'd be registered and traceable making murders a lot easier to solve right now only 60% of murders get solved in this city. Hand gun bans do nothing but put guns in the hands of criminals and makes criminals out of law abiding people. One more thing when the revolution starts where will you be? I'll tell you hiding under your bed with no gun as solders are going door to door

[DawnK]

Illegal guns start off as legal guns. They are usually stolen from someone's house or just sold illegally.

[OdinsEye]

I am a minority and I belong to the NRA.

This court case is not about carrying firearms.

[Toonadude]

That's one..................

[Chitownfool]

I know pistols are iligal in chicago, I want a pistol!

[Ohio9]

So the second amendment rights only apply to certain people based on where they live?

I suppose you also think certain places can prohibit criticizing the government, conduct searches without a warrant, and establish on official religion as well.

Sorry pal, but constitutional rights are universal and apply everywhere.

[dan-o]

If the Supreme Court decides that the amendments to the constitution do not apply to state laws then does that mean the states do not have to follow any of the constitutional amendments? This seems to me to be the kind of ruling that a panel of judges in the old confederacy would of made. That means the states can limit freedom of religion, freedom of speech and can allow the owning of slaves. I thought the constitution being the law of the land was decided in 1865.

The people who support the ruling really need to look at the possible consequences of such a ruling in regards to the rights they want protected by the constitution. This opens the way for any constitutional right to be lessened or taken away by state government.

[OdinsEye]

Dan-o, the USSC decide back in the 1800s that the first eight amendments did not apply to the states. That was one of the reasons for the 14th Amendment. The USSC has been slowly incorporating the rights of the original BoR with the 14th to apply to states and local governments. One of the few rights which has not yet been declared incorporated by the USSC is the right to keep and bear arms.

[3rdpartypatriot]

The "right" to an abortion in this country, that so many of us Americans hold dear, is enforced in every state by a supreme court case which identified it within the bill of rights. If the court rules here that the second amendment (and thus the bill of rights) does not apply to states and cities, wouldn't that then mean organizations like Operation Rescue and catholics could seek to outlaw abortion in a particular state? I would think there could be not much of anything more polarizing that the supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade in the wake of this decision some years down the road. Something for "supporters of rights" to keep in mind. You take away some rights, in the future more will follow.

Gun ownership and possession is a fundamental right to the people of this nation, along with all of the others that both liberals and conservatives hold dear.

[rwext]

Chicago had 36 school kids murdered last year, 7 shoting deaths last weekend, 400 shooting deaths last year, as many shooting deaths in the last decade as American soldiers killed in Iraq... All by ILLEGAL GUNS. Compare DC and Chicago to places with concealed carry, or more lax gun control .

[dan-o]

Actually most of these "school kids" were dropouts and gang members so technically they are not school kids. This is according to a teleision news conference with Mayou Daley. He was asked about that and said that if they were of school age then they would be called school kids. These kids are either part of or victims of the drug war going on in Chicago.

[djkrlsn]

by that standard, DC and Chicago lose big time with higher crime rates

[NWBrunette]

There must be thousands upon thousands of tiny little nooks and crannies all over America where there is no gun to be found. It must keep the NRA up at night. Oh how small their p***ses must be.

[OdinsEye]

Try sticking to facts and not resorting to childish insults and name calling.

[NWBrunette]

They're facts to any reasonable observer.

[dan-o]

What constitutional right are you willing to give up if you are asking gun owners to give up one?

[fcsakes]

It's so nice of the NRA to interpret the Constitution for us. I guess they didn't hear about the plowshares thing, eh?

[onepotatotwopotato]

You mean "Those who beat their swords into plowshares shall plow for those who didn't."?

[onepotatotwopotato]

Our Constitution is not about either books or guns. Our Constitution is about unalienable rights! ". . . . shall not be infringed." sounds pretty absolute to me.

[OdinsEye]

The USSC interpreted the Second already and said it protects an individual right.

This case is about a legal concept called incorporation, by which the restrictions on government liad out in the Bill of Rights are extended to apply to states and local governments, not just the federal government.

[conservativeisaac]

Good grief, folks, get a clue. The Second Amendment isn't going away. But there can be compromises from both sides. Common sense needs to apply. Citizens SHOULD be prohibited from owning crazy high powered weapons such as explosives and large caliber (anything over .50 caliber) guns. Militias, of course, would have special exemption provided they comply with federal and state law. Private citizens SHOULD be allowed to own reliable, small arms for hunting, sport, and self-defense. And only after they demonstrate that they are capable to clean, maintain, and accurately fire any weapon they decide to purchase. If you have to take a driver's test, written and demonstrative, why shouldn't there be the same for guns? They are really only designed with one purpose, and that's to kill or seriously injure. There is no other purpose for a gun. It's why they are classified as weapons. Shooting for sport can be fun as long as it is done in a safe manner, but too often the village idiot finds 500 dollars to spend and in many states only needs a liscense and a clean felony record to walk out the door with a deadly instrument, having deomonstrated no knowledge of how to safely employ that gun for sport, hunting, or self defense. And that, my fellow Americans, pro or anti gun, is not common sense.

[djkrlsn]

My big beef with the licensing idea is who writes the exam (if someone like Rebecca Peters or Carolyn McCarthy writes the exam--there is not an average civilian that is going to pass the exam)

[OdinsEye]

If I write the exam, Josh Sugarmann would not pass, nor would all the high and mighty elitists who think they have the right but that us lowly average Americans don't. In fact, neither would most cops or the military.

[Ohio9]

Driving isn't a constitutional right. You can't compare it with gun ownership.

[onepotatotwopotato]

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

[fcsakes]

Books aren't guns. specious.

[onepotatotwopotato]

I meant to post this here:

Our Constitution is not about either books or guns. Our Constitution is about unalienable rights! ". . . . shall not be infringed." sounds pretty absolute to me.

[OdinsEye]

You fail to grasp the argument.

[CanisLatrans]

It's not comparing books to guns. It's breaking down the argument by its clauses and substituting another noun that is "neutral", as opposed to the "hot" topic of guns.

[NWBrunette]

Analogies aren't really all that hard, but good ones are hard to come by. Especially when the right wing is involved. Yours is just silly. A militia is nothing like an "educated electorate". Go take a philosophy class.

[OdinsEye]

Actually his analogy is quite correct and was originally authored by a respected expert in linguistics.

[djkrlsn]

Since federal laws from the 1790s made the militia the same group of people as the voters (the only real exception--those in the military were voters but not militia)--it looks like you have a bit of research to do

[DawnK]

Why doesn;t the NRA stay away from here. I love how these gun toting hunters want me to understand their right to hunt animals but here in Chicago with a handgun the only thing that gets hunted are people. Oh and 1776 called they want their excuse back.

[rwext]

Ok , put down the pipe and exhale... the 2nd ammendment says nothing about hunting... And Chicago with the strictest gun laws and restrictions in the country just had 7 deadly shootings and over 35 Chicago School kids were killed... Unless you are an alderman or pro athlete in the city , you are not safe

[Wadayatink]

Explain the steady rate of shootings since the ban, it has not reduced crime.

[djkrlsn]

Sorry Dawn--the 2nd amendment is not about hunting--it is about protecting innocent lives

[JDFlyer]

My family and I live in Chicago. The last thing Chicago citizens need are more "well un-regulated militia" running around our neighborhoods. Guns deaths are completely out of control in our city. Please take your guns, your bibles, and your third grade Constitutional law scholarship back under the rock from whence you came.

Gun regulation makes sense and already by law exists - get over it! Drug addicts cannot own guns, mentally ill persons cannot own guns, domestic violence convicted criminals cannot own guns, fugitives cannot own guns. . . . etc.

[onepotatotwopotato]

They DO own guns! Get over it! Since when did criminals obey the law?

[ChristopherAtom]

And there is the rub.
For the most part I have strong liberal leanings, but when it comes to gun rights, as much as I hate to do it, I have to side with the right for that very reason; "Since when did criminals obey the law?"
Don't get me wrong, I would love to live in an idyllic world free of guns and violence, and I believe that day will come whether it take 100 or 1000 years, but we don't and we won't anytime soon.
Suppressing an individuals right to legally own a weapon for self defense is wrong for one glaring reason; the monetary system. We are living in a world where millions upon millions of people will not be able to share in the common wealth of the planet. The monetary system is a game of musical chairs of global scale. Those left without chairs are bound to fight hard for them as their very existence hangs in jeopardy. The monetary system, as it stands, insures a level of criminal element and corruption. This is a fact. All one has to do is look at the list of monetary related crimes.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/infosharing21-01c.htm
This is a cosmic gag reel. The very thing we need to keep us sustained is the very thing we kill each other for and the only one laughing last is the Reaper.

[JD44Irish]

Actually, most of the pro-2nd Amendment posts here have been very moderate acknowledging the need for balance between safety and constitutional rights. Clearly reasonable minds will differ as to where the line should be drawn.

Much like abortion, which states can regulate to a certain degree, there are certian prohibitions that are so onerous as to be unconstitutional. Certainly it is reasonable to set a nationwide standard, no?

Chicago is a very tragic example of what happens when guns are put in the hands of criminals and the laundry list of folks you site. Only the most extreme would disagree with your points there. But we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater and let a number of rotten apples ruin the whole barrel.

There must be a better way than a ban on handguns.

[OdinsEye]

"Guns deaths are completely out of control in our city. "

So, you admit that the gun ban does not work. Thanks.

[puffthedragon]

The term "law abiding citizen" that the pro gunners use cracks me up. Everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they commit that first crime.

[DawnK]

Or until their kid does with their gun. Oh wait, gun owners children never play with guns and always know better.

[JD44Irish]

If you google the statistics you would see that while there are tragic instances as you describe, the number of accidents drops PRECIPITOUSLY in families where fire arms training occurs.

Please do not mistake the exception for the rule.

[OdinsEye]

You can't convict people for things they have not done.

[JohnFromCensornati]

My two main men are Jesus and ol John Birch
So, we're going on down to the gun sale at the church
We'll ask the lord to forgive us for all our sins
And we'll look at the latest in gold-plated firing pins
-Buddy Blue