« Michelle Obama "It's a sacrifice to travel to Europe to pitch the Olympics-we're doing it for the kids" | Main | Dallas Cowboys' Igor Olshansky Takes a Fierce Pride in His Jewish Faith »
October 01, 2009
Supreme Court to hear challenge to Chicago gun law
Otis McDonald, 76, who is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, describes how he was threatened at gunpoint in his neighborhood. (Abel Uribe/Chicago Tribune)
Supreme Court to hear challenge to Chicago gun law
The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns.
At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.
A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.
The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free speech or the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim was to preserve "well-regulated militias."
With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.
"All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all."
If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.
Chicago's Law Department said it was not surprised by today's development and added: "The city of Chicago remains committed to its handgun ordinance, which was enacted to respond to the problem of gun violence in large urban centers."
But Otis McDonald, 76, who is suing the city over its gun ban, says he keeps a 20-gauge shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plague his Morgan Park neighborhood.
"The people that want to control me, my family, my property, these are the people that I want to protect myself from," McDonald said earlier today.
The same children who used to play basketball in McDonald's backyard now threaten his life, he said.
"The plaintiffs in this case ... are good people," said David Sigale, a co-attorney on the McDonald lawsuit. "They're law-abiding. They want to protect themselves. They want to protect their homes. They want to protect their families. They're not the crime problem in Chicago. They never have been."
The Supreme Court's traditionally narrow view of the 2nd Amendment conflicts with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls.
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual's right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.
But since the nation's capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions.
Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court's earlier rulings.
But the Supreme Court Wednesday said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.
Lawyers for the gun owners argued that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" set out in the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities.
Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights.
Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting" such matters as an "establishment of religion" or "abridging the freedom of speech," it was understood originally to limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of the other parts of Bill of Rights.
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty . . . without due process of law."
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and the freedom from "unreasonable searches" are part of the "liberty" protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.
The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment.
Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities. "Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns," they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.
It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.
The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January or February. The case is McDonald vs. Chicago.
Wild Thing's comment........
Praying they uphold our Constitution. Gun Control in Chicago has done NOTHING to stop the murderous gangs and criminals. If law-abiding citizens were able to defend themselves crime would go DOWN, not UP!
Of course, the gang bangers will still target each other, but that hasn’t changed in DECADES - with guns legal or without!
A communist, racist judge like Sotomayor will hardly be looking out for the rights of Americans who want to defend themselves against criminals. Justice Thomas has been an influential member and an interesting book has been written how he has helped shape other Jurors thoughts. Perhaps he can impart some common sense on her
Posted by Wild Thing at October 1, 2009 02:55 PM
Comments
It hasn't worked in New York City, it hasn't worked in every country around the world, it only emboldens the criminal and those with intent to control.
Making criminals out of law abiding citizens will not stop crime, neither will disarming them. Aggressive policing and sentencing of the riff raff that gets a pass in every community will stop most gang activity. Right now it's profitable for crime to exist, from the political spectrum to the enforcement spectrum. Remove the criminal and you remove the legislator, the lawyer, the judge and the swat teams as well as the crime. Don't bet on Sotomayor, she's going to legislate from the bench.
Posted by: Jack at October 1, 2009 06:01 PM
Part of me is VERY nervous about this. I'm wondering why now of all times would they bring up a case to this particular court with a b!tch like sodomizer. I tell you what. I hate the SCOTUS about as much as I hate the g*ddamn chicoms (and that's saying a lot). Besides which ALL criminals are exempted from any "registration" scheme.
Haynes v. United States 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
Finding: Haynes' conviction under 5851 for possession of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register.
Posted by: JohnE PFC U.S. Army at October 1, 2009 06:52 PM
This struggle over the second amendment will continue to be a protracted struggle, it seems to have no end. The SCOTUS as presently constituted in pro-second amendment, but that could change on a dime with new appointment by the nut in the White House now.
Posted by: Ron Russell at October 1, 2009 07:34 PM
Ordinarily I favor states' rights over Federal law. In this case though, this is under the Second Amendment of The US Constitution. The Bill of Rights take priority over local laws. This is not a Tenth Amendment issue but a Second Amendment right.
The SCOTUS should only rule one way on this but I know that some of them are anti individual freedom. There is one swing vote and we never know which way he will go. I guess it is better to settle this issue now. The odds of a liberal judge replacing a conservative judge over the next three years are too great.
Posted by: TomR at October 1, 2009 07:55 PM
"Of course, the gang bangers will still target each other"..... (except for someone accedently caught in the crossfire) that's a good thing. Let the bastards wipe each other out!
Posted by: Rac at October 1, 2009 08:45 PM
I heard today, that before the gun ban in Chicago about 32 death were caused by guns, this was 1972(?) but today with the gun ban these deaths by gun have increased 250% percent. How is that possible or about 82 deaths per year with guns being banned. It don't work. What works is taking away the Right of the People, to defend themselves. More control.
Also the 14th Amendment has been used to find the Right to Abortion. If that is true it certainly should be able to porvide some ground to validate the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: Mark at October 1, 2009 09:34 PM
The Bill of Rights is actually pretty simple to understand. Unfortunately it talks lawyers, particularly lawyers in black robes, to screw it up and complicate it. Only lawyers could add terms like "separation of church and state" and "abortion" and "right to privacy" into the document when they don't exist in any shape or form.
In that SCOTUS decision, four justices voted against it. Four black robed lawyers said that the Bill of Rights didn't pertain to individual citizens and their freedoms. As American Citizens, we need to be concerned, very concerned at these cases and decisions.
Posted by: BobF at October 1, 2009 10:44 PM
