Here's a good link to the entire decision:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O20JMMYJ.pdf
We'll win this one in the SCOTUS IMHO.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O20JMMYJ.pdf
We'll win this one in the SCOTUS IMHO.
Chicago and Oak Park are poorly placed to make these
arguments. After all, Illinois has not abolished self-defense
and has not expressed a preference for long guns over
handguns. But the municipalities can, and do, stress
another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of
the Bill of Rights: 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. See New State
Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J.,
dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal
system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and
economic experiments without risk to the rest of the
country.”); Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40–53 (1978) (Powell,
J., dissenting) (arguing that only “fundamental” liberties).
How arguments of
this kind will affect proposals to “incorporate” the second
amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of
appeals.
AFFIRMED
In short, what a bunch of whooey!! The SCOTUS held self-defense is ok and using a firearm for self-defense purposes is lawful.
Draconian? A $10 shall issue card that is good for ten years? A minor inconvenience, but no where near the draconian scheme in some other states like NY or CA. You will notice no one in this debate has made any kind of serious attempt to claim gun control reduces crime. Its never, ever been about reducing crime.Chicago has had firearms prohibitions and Illinois has had draconian registration schemes for DECADES. And, as we all know, that city is still experiencing huge violence problems.
I think you are way too pessimistic. Time wise we are looking at a couple of decades of litigation to sort things out, but here is where i think it will end up.Assuming that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case the most likely outcome is that the Second Amendment will be incorporated but that the states can still require permits to own and carry firearms, can still require the registration of firearms, can still require waiting periods to obtain a firearm and can still restrict access to certain sub-categories of firearms (i.e. you can own rifles but not so-called "assault rifles"; Remington 700 legal, AR-15 illegal).
In short, you will be guaranteed the right to own a bolt action rifle, double barreled shotgun or revolver provided you jump through hoops, make five or six trips to Police Headquarters or the Sheriff's Department and are willing to lay out hundreds of dollars in administrative fees. If your particular municipality is opposed to private firearms ownership you will be straight out of luck.
Which also addresses PO 2010
You will notice no one in this debate has made any kind of serious attempt to claim gun control reduces crime. Its never, ever been about reducing crime.
Atlanta - It's been a disappointing year for American cities seeking to curb violence via tough gun laws.
Since last June, when the US Supreme Court struck down key parts of the District of Columbia's gun-control ordinance, cities have seen the 20,000 local gun regulations enacted over the years begin to slip from their grip, one by one.
Philadelphia's ban on assault weapons and limits on handgun purchases are the latest to succumb, struck down Thursday by a state court. An appeal to the state Supreme Court is expected. In April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an ordinance in California's Alameda County that banned gun shows, saying the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applies in the states.
For years, strict gun laws in primarily Midwestern, Northeastern, and California cities have created an uneasy tension between the Second Amendment and crime-fighting realities on the ground. Then, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, affirmed the constitutional right of individual Americans to own handguns, in a case known as District of Columbia v. Heller. In striking down parts of D.C.'s law, it opened the door to court challenges of other cities' ordinances restricting access to certain kinds of guns.
Gun-control laws in "New York and Chicago are next," says Bill Vizzard, a criminologist at California State University at Sacramento. Though the Heller ruling doesn't give a carte blanche right to "have a gun anywhere, under any circumstance," he says, its effect "could still be extensive. We just don't know yet how courts are ultimately going to interpret it."
Post-Heller, US appeals courts have divided over whether the ruling means that other city and state gun-control laws should be invalidated. The US high court could resolve the matter, but legal scholars say it's hard to tell if the justices are interested in setting a broad precedent on the issue.
The two laws in Philadelphia stuck down Thursday were enacted in 2008. One banned assault-style weapons, which are semi-automatic rifles altered to combat specifications. The other restricted an individual's ability to buy handguns to one a month.
Mr. Vizzard characterizes the gun rights movement as a long-term, deliberate, and scholarly based march akin to that of the civil rights movement. But the pro-gun legal effort, he notes, is moving counter to trends that show Americans becoming increasingly distant from their pioneer roots, with gun-rights stalwarts primarily consisting of middle-age and older white men.
That paradox puts more focus on the makeup of courts, including the US Supreme Court.
In January, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, as part of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was part of a majority that ruled against invoking the Second Amendment in a challenge to New York's ban on nunchaku sticks, a martial arts weapon. The ban stands.
The Pennsylvania high court ruled in 1996 that cities can't preempt the state's gun laws to create their own, but Philadelphia is now hoping that a court with a different makeup will rule differently, says Scott Shields, the lead National Rifle Association attorney.
Not all cities have lost in court. One challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was turned back earlier this month by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Polls show that most Americans believe in the Second Amendment, but most also want stronger gun laws. The percentage of Americans who support an assault-weapons ban, however, has slid several percentage points in the past few years. In 2007, gun groups spent nearly $2 million to lobby Congress; pro-gun control groups spent $60,000.
For years, strict gun laws in primarily Midwestern, Northeastern, and California cities have created an uneasy tension between the Second Amendment and crime-fighting realities on the ground.