See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: High court to look at local gun control laws
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap ... uUfAAvvLl1R6dY5oGQcOgD9B1MGGO1
Published: Sep 30, 2009
Author: MARK SHERMAN
Post Date: 2009-09-30 11:03:19 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 122
Comments: 9
High court to look at local gun control laws By MARK SHERMAN (AP) – 43 minutes ago WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners. The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave. The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws. 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, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, 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. The high court took his suggestion Wednesday. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, was part of a three-judge 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 New York ruling also has been challenged, but the court did not act on it Wednesday. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court. Although the issue is the same in the Chicago case, there is no ethical bar to her participation in its consideration by the Supreme Court. Several Republican senators cited the Sotomayor gun ruling, as well as her reticence on the topic at her confirmation hearing, in explaining their decision to oppose her confirmation to the high court. The case will be argued next year. The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
The beauty of this is that no matter what they decide, you still have the absolute and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, no matter where you live. That's why it's a right, and not a privilege. Get armed. Stay armed.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Not in NYC or NJ. You will be arrested for owning a gun.
You're confusing privileges with rights. You don't need a law, for or against, to have a right. You have the right because you are born with it, it is inherent in your being. The question of being prevented from exercising a right is legitimate, however, there is no question that you always have the right whether you can exercise it or not. If a group of thugs representing a mob wish to use force to deprive you of the ability to exercise a right, then it behooves all of us to deal with that matter directly and efficiently.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
That's why it's a right, and not a privilege. Get armed. Stay armed. While I agree with you. It's the same as Harry Ried saying that our tax system is voluntary. Things either are, or they are not. What good is a right if I cannot exercise that right?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Can you exercise the right to free speech in the home of somebody who opposes your views? Generally, no, not if he tells you that you can't or you'll be forced to leave. So on that one little plot of land, you cannot exercise that right, however, does that then mean that you do not posses the right? Of course you do. My point here is, they can rule however the hell they want, I for one say we invoke the 10th amendment and ignore them, openly and defiantly. And if they come to deprive us of our right, we respond as free men should.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
Like I said. I don't disagree. I'm with ya!
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
"If they [the judges] consider its [a law's] principles and find it to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, it is their duty to pronounce it void." -James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice "There is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly impowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #81 I'm not holding my breath for those bozo's to do the right thing, they're nothing more than a despotic chamber of tyrants.
_________________________________________________________________________ With all do respect, you are confusing the Natural Rights (referenced in D.C. v Heller) enjoyed by Citizens of a State with the "Incorporated Rights" (many found in USC, Title 42, Civil Rights Acts and various Court rulings.. only one found in D.C. v Heller) celebrated by U.S. citizens (a subject of the Federal Government as per the purported 14th Amendment). In short, as a Citizen of a State, my natural rights existed prior to The Constitution of the United States of America (1787), many of these rights are recognized in the Bill of Rights. The confusion betwixt the two citizenship status's confounds U.S. citizens "whom simply are unaware of their Political Status.. or how they became a Subject of Fed Gov."... See the Slaughter-House cases for greater detail. Warm Regards, Patrick
In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.
Actually, this is exactly what I'm talking about, I'm not sure where you find confusion. I'm speaking wholly of natural rights, which we are born with and are inherent in our being, as humans, simply due to the fact that we're humans. They require no government to bestow them, nor any other person to recognize them, for them each of us to hold them. Others, on the other hand, tend to confuse the notion of rights with the idea of privileges, and figure that if they cannot exercise a right because of mitigating factors, then they no longer posses right right per se. Which is incorrect.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
#2. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)
The beauty of this is that no matter what they decide, you still have the absolute and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, no matter where you live.
#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)
The beauty of this is that no matter what they decide, you still have the absolute and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, no matter where you live.
#5. To: phantom patriot (#4)
#6. To: SonOfLiberty (#5)
My point here is, they can rule however the hell they want, I for one say we invoke the 10th amendment and ignore them, openly and defiantly. And if they come to deprive us of our right, we respond as free men should.
#7. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
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.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#8. To: SonOfLiberty (#3)
"You're confusing privileges with rights. "
#9. To: PatrickHenry (#8)
In short, as a Citizen of a State, my natural rights existed prior to The Constitution of the United States of America (1787), many of these rights are recognized in the Bill of Rights.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest