2nd Amendment to be Tested Again
-
2nd Amendment to be Tested Again
June 8, 2009
By Joan Biskupic
USA Today
WASHINGTON — One year after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns, the justices have before them a new test of that right.
The National Rifle Association has appealed a ruling from a U.S. appeals court in Chicago that said the right to bear arms cannot be invoked by gun owners challenging state and local firearm regulations. It said the high court's groundbreaking decision last term in a case from Washington, D.C., allows the Second Amendment to cover only regulations by the federal government — at least until the high court weighs in again.
If the justices decide to take up the appeal, it would probably be heard next fall by a bench that could include Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on a federal appeals court in New York. She was part of a court panel in January that similarly held that the 2008 gun decision did not apply to state regulations.
A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, however, ruled this year that the Second Amendment indeed covers state gun restrictions.
"Because of the split in opinions (on the breadth of the 2008 ruling), it seems likely that the court would take it," says Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He says a ruling could affect gun laws nationwide.
The June 2008 decision, decided by a 5-4 vote, said for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns at home for self-protection. A 1939 high court decision had led lower courts and many legal analysts to believe the Second Amendment covered firearm rights only for state militias such as National Guard units.
The new decision in National Rifle Association v. Chicago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, written by conservative Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbrook, echoes the closely scrutinized decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court for the 2nd Circuit that included Sotomayor.
She joined an opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York ban on certain weapons used in martial arts and emphasized that the high court has never specifically ruled that the Second Amendment can be applied to state regulations. That 2nd Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, provoked some gun rights groups to protest Sotomayor's nomination. The Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called her "an anti-gun radical."
Last Tuesday's decision by the 7th Circuit undercuts criticism that the Sotomayor panel decision was extreme. As Easterbrook wrote, specifically agreeing with the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court said in the 2008 case involving a District of Columbia handgun ban that it was not deciding whether the Second Amendment covered state or local regulations.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the high court decision, noted that the case arose from the federal enclave of Washington, D.C., and that past cases said the Second Amendment covers only the federal government. With a new case from a state or municipality, the court could extend the reach of the Second Amendment.
Until then, Easterbrook wrote in the case involving handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, an appeals court may not "strike off on its own." He said that would undermine the uniformity of the nation's laws.
The NRA's Stephen Halbrook, representing Chicago and Oak Park residents who want to keep handguns at home, urged the justices to take up the 7th Circuit case to resolve the reach of last term's ruling.
Halbrook said the right to guns "allows one to protect life itself."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ju...ourt-guns_N.htm
-
Laura Bush is classy, and she may not know Sotomayor's anti-American Constitution sentiments yet.
-
Loss Of Second Amendment
Closer Than You Think
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to "armed self-defense" came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were criminally charged while the real criminals were released.
-
Laura Bush is classy, and she may not know Sotomayor's anti-American Constitution sentiments yet.
-
Just to be serious here. I can't imagine how the 2nd can't be applied to the states.
Federal rule trumps state law in every other case I can think of.
If this challenge is somehow set-back, what is to keep states from passing and enforcing anti-abortion laws?
This is a slam dunk, and if not, we are in the midst of a takeover, and even our anti-gun friends should be afraid.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login