An article on the case
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html
*
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
* The Wall Street Journal
* SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, 1:48 P.M. ET
Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh Local Gun Laws
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on state gun regulations, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of weapons rights in the 21st century.
Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital city.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Chicago's ban on the possession of handguns. WSJ's Jess Bravin details this case and previews others the Court will hear in the coming weeks.
That decision rested on the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.
The same attorney who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against gun regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.
The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states as well as the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also would be read this way.
The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel at the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court found that it remained bound by the 1886 precedent.
In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, implicitly overruled the 19th century case. The full Ninth Circuit voted to reconsider that decision, but held off until the Supreme Court decided whether to consider the issue.
By accepting the Chicago case, the court allowed Justice Sotomayor to take part. She probably would have recused herself if the New York case in which she ruled were brought to the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
Scholars long have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, whose elliptical language lacks the clarity of some other constitutional provisions. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that isn't necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In 1939, the court upheld a federal regulation on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns, observing that such weapons weren't typically used by the militia.
In the 2008 Heller case, the court split 5-4 along ideological lines to strike down the Washington ordinance. The two longest-serving justices, Antonin Scalia for the majority and John Paul Stevens in dissent, produced dueling historical treatises replete with references to weapons rights through the ages, with particular focuses on the modern implications of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the regulations imposed by the 13 colonies in the revolutionary era.
The case is expected to be heard and decided during the Supreme Court term that begins Monday and ends in June. (McDonald v. City of Chicago)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html
*
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
* The Wall Street Journal
* SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, 1:48 P.M. ET
Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh Local Gun Laws
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on state gun regulations, the second phase of the justices' re-examination of weapons rights in the 21st century.
Last year, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital city.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Chicago's ban on the possession of handguns. WSJ's Jess Bravin details this case and previews others the Court will hear in the coming weeks.
That decision rested on the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.
The same attorney who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against gun regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority.
The high court's constitutional doctrines have changed significantly since the 19th century, and several provisions of the Bill of Rights are now viewed as limits on states as well as the federal government. However, the Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment also would be read this way.
The court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was on a panel at the Second Circuit in New York that upheld a state law restricting martial arts weapons. Like the Seventh Circuit, the New York federal appeals court found that it remained bound by the 1886 precedent.
In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, implicitly overruled the 19th century case. The full Ninth Circuit voted to reconsider that decision, but held off until the Supreme Court decided whether to consider the issue.
By accepting the Chicago case, the court allowed Justice Sotomayor to take part. She probably would have recused herself if the New York case in which she ruled were brought to the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
Scholars long have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, whose elliptical language lacks the clarity of some other constitutional provisions. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that isn't necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In 1939, the court upheld a federal regulation on the trafficking of sawed-off shotguns, observing that such weapons weren't typically used by the militia.
In the 2008 Heller case, the court split 5-4 along ideological lines to strike down the Washington ordinance. The two longest-serving justices, Antonin Scalia for the majority and John Paul Stevens in dissent, produced dueling historical treatises replete with references to weapons rights through the ages, with particular focuses on the modern implications of the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the regulations imposed by the 13 colonies in the revolutionary era.
The case is expected to be heard and decided during the Supreme Court term that begins Monday and ends in June. (McDonald v. City of Chicago)
