PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court



Geezah
06-03-2009, 08:16 PM
A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”

Second Amendment

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “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 Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”

Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.

Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies.

Following Precedent

Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove.

That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states.

An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote.

The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments.

Applicable Law

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.

Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property.

Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome.

“This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.

“This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.

The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide)

...........................

LaoSexMachine
06-03-2009, 10:24 PM
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

That means in principle any city can reject any amendment.

Alpheus
06-03-2009, 10:30 PM
What a spectacularly stupid ruling.

akd
06-03-2009, 10:54 PM
Thank God! Shootings might have gone through the roof in Chicago if the law had been overturned!

JJC
06-03-2009, 10:56 PM
With each day, I'm starting to hate lawyers and judges especially when it comes to constitutional law. It seems like logic is not part of any decision process anymore, but politics and personal opinion of men in black robes. Plus, hierarchical power of these men controls our lives. I would like to ask these genius judges how did they come to a conclusion that the Constitution was meant to apply to D.C. but not to states or to municipalities? Besides, isn't D.C. a municipality?

Walter Sobchak
06-03-2009, 11:06 PM
With each day, I'm starting to hate lawyers and judges especially when it comes to constitutional law. It seems like logic is not part of any decision process anymore, but politics and personal opinion of men in black robes. Plus, hierarchical power of these men controls our lives. I would like to ask these genius judges how did they come to a conclusion that the Constitution was meant to apply to D.C. but not to states or to municipalities? Besides, isn't D.C. a municipality?

So, if this is true, then wouldn't the corollary be true? In other words, if the ruling by the SCOTUS on a DC law only applied to DC and not to "states and municipalities", then could one not reason that other Supreme Court rulings would NOT apply to DC but only to "states and municipalities"?

So, based on that logic, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona... none of those apply in DC? That means they go back to segregation, no legal abortion and not advising persons of their Miranda rights when arrested.

This ruling goes beyond stupid...

JJC
06-03-2009, 11:18 PM
I'll have to read the opinion to see what precedence they used to come to that conclusion. If SCOTUS takes on the case, it will rule that states and cities can't make it too difficult for citizens to own firearms, but will also leave the states to have strong regulations. Depending on the mood of the court, they might even avoid taking on this hot button issue for now. :)

Hot Lips
06-03-2009, 11:51 PM
Conservative Judges Echo Sotomayor in Gun Ruling

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been called an "anti-gun radical" by some gun rights activists for joining an opinion this year that said the Second Amendment does not prevent state and local governments from restricting arms ownership.

But yesterday a panel of conservative luminaries on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reached the same decision. The unanimous ruling rejecting a challenge to Chicago's tough handgun law could complicate efforts to portray Sotomayor as a judicial activist trying to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decision last year holding that the amendment protects the right to own a gun for self-defense.
It also tees up the issue for review by the high court and raises questions about whether Sotomayor would be able to participate, should she be confirmed to the court.

Gun rights advocates have criticized Sotomayor for a decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit of which she was a member. The unsigned opinion dismissed a challenge to a New York law that banned nunchakus, a martial arts weapon.

The challenger had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which struck down Washington's ban on handguns and said individuals have the right to keep arms at home for self-defense.
But the panel on which Sotomayor served said it was clear from Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment could be applied only to the federal government, or in a federal enclave such as Washington. It said only that the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions."

Gun rights advocates pointed to the decision in Maloney v. Cuomo as Exhibit A in their description of Sotomayor as an "anti-gun radical."
"Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision," said a statement by the Gun Owners of America.

But yesterday, a panel of the 7th Circuit, hearing a challenge to gun laws in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park, came to the same conclusion. "We agree with Maloney," said the opinion, referring to the 2nd Circuit's decision. The 7th Circuit's decision was written by the circuit's chief judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, one of the nation's leading conservative judges, along with two Republican-appointed judges, including conservative favorite Richard A. Posner.

The 7th Circuit opinion said it was not up to appeals courts to evade the Supreme Court's precedents by agreeing with unique arguments from lawyers that tried to undermine them.

If that were the case, Easterbrook wrote, the court's decisions "would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."
The issue touches on the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments.

Lawyers challenging gun restrictions and some legal scholars contend that they do, through the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. And that was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit earlier this year. The Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision in the Heller case last year, which for the first time found that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms, specifically left the decision of whether it applied to the states for another day.


Source: WashingtonPost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060203379.html), June 3, 2009


Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

khaz
06-04-2009, 02:12 AM
SSSSShhhhhhh quit complaining or Chicago will ban the 1st amendment.

Holmes85
06-04-2009, 02:51 AM
I guess this means we gotta hide our guns now. I'll be outside digging a secret underground bunker.

LRPV
06-04-2009, 03:29 AM
"The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities."

Can someone explain this to me please? Am I off track in thinking that all of the US would come under a state or municipality, therefore this judgement neuters the right to bear arms for individuals?

Holmes85
06-04-2009, 04:54 AM
The Supreme Court won't be all to happy to hear how some people overruled their decision.

XShipRider
06-04-2009, 05:59 AM
With each day, I'm starting to hate lawyers and judges especially when it comes to constitutional law. It seems like logic is not part of any decision process anymore, but politics and personal opinion of men in black robes. Plus, hierarchical power of these men controls our lives. I would like to ask these genius judges how did they come to a conclusion that the Constitution was meant to apply to D.C. but not to states or to municipalities? Besides, isn't D.C. a municipality?

Aw, shame on you! You said "men" not persons, hermaphrodites, eunuchs, people of gender or some other PC term. Time for some reindoctrination. Or maybe just a Freudian slip.

Regardless, law-abiding Chicagoans are now comforted to know criminals will be unarmed (or vice versa).

grenadier07
06-04-2009, 08:30 AM
"The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities."

I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar but even I can see that this is one of the dumbest things ever said by a judge. If you can say that about the Second Amendment then couldn't someone else concievably use that precedent to de**** us of other rights?

California Joe
06-04-2009, 08:57 AM
Sounds arrogant and subversive to me. Where's hank?

bugkill
06-04-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm glad that the court upheld the ordnance because now it can go to the Supreme Court and hopefully get struck down there. It is not a bad thing that the NRA lost and it may be the very thing we need to get the ball rolling on this issue. It is time for the Supreme Court to tackle this issue and make a final decision on whether or not states can limit our right to a handgun.

Regardless, I ALWAYS had a loaded pistol in my home when I lived in Chicago. No ordnance is going to stop citizens from packing heat in their homes.

cbreedon
06-04-2009, 11:15 AM
So in effect they are saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states or municipalities?? I realize that was the orginal intent of the constitution (the BoR's is there to restrain the Fedsnot the States) but for half a century the courts have enforced the BoR's on the states as well i.e 14th Amendment.

California Joe
06-04-2009, 12:08 PM
Like bugkill just said, they're forcing the issue to the Supreme Court to make them actually do their jobs and give a specific ruling. Uphold the 2nd or not.

Hollis
06-04-2009, 12:21 PM
Like bugkill just said, they're forcing the issue to the Supreme Court to make them actually do their jobs and give a specific ruling. Uphold the 2nd or not.


That could be a very very good thing.

Jobu
06-04-2009, 12:24 PM
It could be a VERY bad thing if Sotomayor ends up being the swing vote either way.

Maloney v Cuomo

Holmes85
06-04-2009, 01:45 PM
I don't think it'll go that far. I mean the Second Amendment has been through worse waters and still survived. Additionally, the ownership of firearms has become almost a cultural aspect of the United States, especially when it comes to hunting.

In my home State of Wisconsin I can only imagine the rebellion that hunters would throw if their ownership of rifles was banned.

JJC
06-04-2009, 01:55 PM
So in effect they are saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states or municipalities?? I realize that was the orginal intent of the constitution (the BoR's is there to restrain the Fedsnot the States) but for half a century the courts have enforced the BoR's on the states as well i.e 14th Amendment.

That is the most probable reason how the judges came to the conclusion. 2nd amendment continues to evade incorporation through 14th amendment. I just don't see the court incorporating the right unto states any time soon. They may just reverse severe restrictions in a particular case, but I don't see the court taking a political risk.

wildcat
06-04-2009, 01:57 PM
so if the bill of rights does not apply to states and municipalities, who cares it applies to the people, so the states and municipalities really have no say. That is how I see it. As the 9th and 10th amendment give the rights to the people.

JJC
06-04-2009, 02:02 PM
so if the bill of rights does not apply to states and municipalities, who cares it applies to the people, so the states and municipalities really have no say. That is how I see it. As the 9th and 10th amendment give the rights to the people.

The 9th or the "silent amendment" has not been used in constitutional law in ages. It never became too popular with the court because the way it is written anything can be interpreted as a right, so the courts historically avoid it. The 10th applies to states and not individuals or the "people" at least that's how the courts been using it.

Hot Lips
06-04-2009, 07:03 PM
So in effect they are saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states or municipalities?? I realize that was the orginal intent of the constitution (the BoR's is there to restrain the Feds not the States) but for half a century the courts have enforced the BoR's on the states as well i.e 14th Amendment.

They have enforced those that the Supreme Court has made specific judgements on over the years. They have not done so for the 2nd, thus Sotomayora's and the Chicago panel are pushing issues up the ladder for a decision.


It could be a VERY bad thing if Sotomayor ends up being the swing vote either way.

Maloney v Cuomo

Maybe that depends on which case gets before them. Would she even be allowed to make a SC decision on her own case from a lower court?

Violet Fashion by Mindy
06-04-2009, 07:06 PM
A victory for FREEDOM!

A gun FREE society is a FREE society!