Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/3/2009 3:09:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2009 3:14:54 AM EST by Paslode]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124398585843379259.html

* JUNE 3, 2009, 3:08 A.M. ET

Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns


By JESS BRAVIN

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment to strike down a handgun ban adopted in 1976 by the Washington, D.C., City Council. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the amendment protected from federal infringement an individual right to "keep and bear arms."
More

The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

A string of 19th century Supreme Court decisions limited application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that certain constitutional rights, but not the Second Amendment, could be enforced against the states.

Gun-rights groups challenged ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., as unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision last year. A federal district judge rejected their arguments, a decision affirmed Tuesday by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook observed that an 1886 Supreme Court decision limited the Second Amendment to the federal government. While that decision might be a "fossil," the lower courts have no power to overrule a Supreme Court opinion even if they suspect the high court may be inclined to do so itself. It was "hard to predict" what the Supreme Court would do should it consider the question in future, Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Judge Easterbrook and the two other Seventh Circuit judges were all appointed by Republican presidents. Judge Easterbrook wrote that they agreed with an unsigned Second Circuit opinion that in January rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a New York state law barring possession of nunchuka sticks, a martial arts weapon. That panel, in New York, included Judge Sotomayor and two other judges appointed by President Bill Clinton.

In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel earlier this year held that the Second Amendment applies to state governments, even as it upheld a local ordinance banning guns from county property. One judge was appointed by a Republican president, the other two by Democrats.

Were they to follow the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, Supreme Court "decisions could be circumvented with ease," Judge Easterbrook wrote. "They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."

The split among the circuits increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will step in decide the Second Amendment's application to state weapons laws.

If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would not be bound by prior high court decisions and could provide her own analysis of the Second Amendment's application.

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com


Link Posted: 6/3/2009 3:22:41 AM EST
This case must go all the way to SCOTUS.

States rights, or individual rights protected by the Constitution?
Link Posted: 6/3/2009 9:41:14 AM EST
it better get there before Sonia does.
Link Posted: 6/3/2009 10:13:37 AM EST
It won't matter the one she is replacing went against Heller it will still most likley be 5-4
Link Posted: 6/3/2009 12:20:27 PM EST
This is just retarded on so many levels.
Link Posted: 6/3/2009 12:24:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2009 12:24:34 PM EST by eracer]

Originally Posted By Drew599:
This is just retarded on so many levels.

What do we want, a democracy or a republic? Individual rights sacred? Or States rights sacred?
Link Posted: 6/3/2009 7:41:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By eracer:

Originally Posted By Drew599:
This is just retarded on so many levels.

What do we want, a democracy or a republic? Individual rights sacred? Or States rights sacred?


Well I would like to keep my individual rights but since they happen to be in constant flux along with every right in the country...its a really tough call. To be honest I kind of had a feeling something like this was going to happen when I started hearing about states' rights coming up. Because (some of) the states pass some fucking retarded shit. So I would just rather have the gov uphold the constitution so everyone has equal rights...and any state in this union would have to honor the constitution as the gov does. Isn't that the general idea of freedom and equal rights. I don't think it really matters because they are going to try and fuck with us on which ever side that will get the job done the fastest. Its going to be either the state taking away our weapons or the gov. I know Montana is doing some cool shit with their state's rights but still the possibility for this thing to go completely sidewards on us all is very real.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 7:12:37 AM EST
Wouldn't the governor be under pressure form the majority of his/her state, If so couldn't it be a good or bad idea?
Tom
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 3:56:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 3:57:07 PM EST by SilentType]
1. DUPE.

2. Their opinion was weak at best. They basically ignored key parts of D.C. v Heller and heavily relied on bullshit.

Chief Justice Easterbrook is basically a fascists. Many mistake his rulings that have contributed to the damage done to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments as the act of a "conservative," but he's just a policed state type of guy that mistakes tyranny for law and order. He's basically the flipside of the same coin to liberal activist judges. Guy never met a restriction he didn't like placed on the people unless it had to do with business.

Chief Justice Easterbrook is basically a fascist who only ever fights for big corporation and the gestapo powers for police.

He betrays the Constitution whenever it doesn't mix with his ideology. Pure and simple.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 4:00:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By Drew599:
Well I would like to keep my individual rights but since they happen to be in constant flux along with every right in the country...its a really tough call. To be honest I kind of had a feeling something like this was going to happen when I started hearing about states' rights coming up. Because (some of) the states pass some fucking retarded shit. So I would just rather have the gov uphold the constitution so everyone has equal rights...and any state in this union would have to honor the constitution as the gov does. Isn't that the general idea of freedom and equal rights. I don't think it really matters because they are going to try and fuck with us on which ever side that will get the job done the fastest. Its going to be either the state taking away our weapons or the gov. I know Montana is doing some cool shit with their state's rights but still the possibility for this thing to go completely sidewards on us all is very real.


All we can do right now is pursue peaceful legal means to uphold the Constitution. If the courts are so infested with activist judges that the Constitution is allowed to be ignored and fundamental liberties trampled then we're into Plan B aren't we?




Link Posted: 6/15/2009 4:05:52 PM EST
This is the natural progression of a case and a necessary step in moving to the Supreme Court.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 9:33:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
This is the natural progression of a case and a necessary step in moving to the Supreme Court.


Important point made by the poster above.

It was inevitable that at some point one of the twelve U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was going to come to a conclusion that ran contrary to one of the other courts.

It is best that this matter be brought for review before the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible. While each member of the majority in D.C. v Heller is still alive and on the Court. With Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas all at advanced ages as well as Chief Justice Roberts having suffered a slight stroke last year and President Obama able to appoint any replacements now is the best time for the Court to visit this issue.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:29:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By eracer:
This case must go all the way to SCOTUS.

States rights, or individual rights protected by the Constitution?

States have no rights...

The BOR should apply to all levels - not just the Feds...
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:30:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By 767fixer:
it better get there before Sonia does.

She is replacing a 'NO' vote, so it will make no difference....
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 3:40:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By eracer:
This case must go all the way to SCOTUS.

States rights, or individual rights protected by the Constitution?

States have no rights...

The BOR should apply to all levels - not just the Feds...




The shit that flows from your brain is truly mind boggling.


Originally Posted By THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Link Posted: 6/16/2009 4:26:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/16/2009 4:33:34 PM EST by SilentType]
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:


Originally Posted By THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Since about the 1890s the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate most portions of the Bill of Rights.

When the Second Amendment was held in D.C. v Heller, to be an individual right for those living in the federal district of Washington, District of Columbia then I believe it is plain that under the 14th Amendment it is an individual right for those in the 50 states of this great nation.

I think it's common sense that the Founders when they ratified the Second Amendment in 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights didn't intend it only to apply as an individual liberty to those living in Washington D.C., which wasn't even officially Washington D.C. until it was created in 1871 by an Act of Congress.
Link Posted: 6/16/2009 5:12:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By SilentType:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:


Originally Posted By THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Since about the 1890s the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate most portions of the Bill of Rights.

When the Second Amendment was held in D.C. v Heller, to be an individual right for those living in the federal district of Washington, District of Columbia then I believe it is plain that under the 14th Amendment it is an individual right for those in the 50 states of this great nation.

I think it's common sense that the Founders when they ratified the Second Amendment in 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights didn't intend it only to apply as an individual liberty to those living in Washington D.C., which wasn't even officially Washington D.C. until it was created in 1871 by an Act of Congress.


Oh, I know... I took Con Law I and II. Senior _A did not.
Top Top