Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling

[Hitower]

L.A. Times Online

Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling

Reporting from Washington - When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.

On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.

"I only want a handgun in my home for my protection," said McDonald, 76.

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

"If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person," said Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.

In Chicago, New York and elsewhere, police say these stop-and-frisk searches make the streets safer by disarming thugs. "If this [ban] is overturned, we think there would be an increase in violence," Alvarez said.

Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

A ruling overturning the Chicago ordinance would open the door to gun rights suits nationwide. "You will see a wave of lawsuits against state and local gun laws. This is just the first shot in a broad-based gun rights offensive," said Dennis Henigan, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

The city's lawyers say firearms have been regulated throughout American history -- and without interference from federal judges. In the 1770s, Boston, Philadelphia and New York prohibited discharging a gun within the city. Even in the Wild West, cattle towns like Dodge City, Kan., required cowboys to turn in their guns.

But defenders of the 2nd Amendment say their goal is to restore the "right to keep and bear arms" to its proper place as a constitutional right.

In the end, the Supreme Court could decide that the right to have a gun applies only at home. If so, Chicago and other cities could adopt strict limits on public possession of a handgun even if the current ordinance is struck down.

But gun rights advocates say the 2nd Amendment applies more broadly and protects a right to have a gun for self-defense. In Washington, they filed a suit seeking a right to have a gun on the streets. In California, lawyers for the National Rifle Assn. say they plan to challenge the policy in Los Angeles County and elsewhere of refusing to issue "concealed carry" permits to most gun owners who want to carry a weapon in public.

But before such claims go forward, the Supreme Court must decide whether the 2nd Amendment reaches beyond federal laws. Though the answer may seem obvious today, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, has historically been as limiting only laws from Washington.

The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Until the early part of the 20th century, it shielded Americans only from federal restrictions on free expression.

The 2nd Amendment says, "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." Throughout the 19th century, and until quite recently, the high court maintained that this clause was intended to give states the power to control armed militias.

But in recent decades, most Americans have come to believe the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a gun, regardless of whether they serve in a militia.

Two years ago, the high court agreed. By a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and said the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. However, since the district is a federal enclave, the justices did not rule on whether state and local ordinances could be challenged under the 2nd Amendment.

Gun rights advocates say the justices should declare that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, like free speech, and is protected from infringement by local, state or federal laws.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. "Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?" he asked at a news conference in Washington.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday and issue a ruling by late June.

[/Quote]

[Guest jackdm3]

Get it on, baby!

[TripleDigitRide]

Mayor Richard M. Daley is a complete douchebag. As if the streets of Chicago aren't already flooded with guns -- by the criminals.

[jtluttrell]

.

Edited February 28, 2010 by jtluttrell
Maybe its just me............................

[Guest redbarron06]

Like the federal govt abides by the "shall not be infringed" part of 2A. Cities like NY, Chicago and SF will come up wit BS laws that are will be so hard to comply with that it will turn off all but the most passionate gun owners. Look what happened in DC. it took them what 3 seconds to say ok you can have one but it has to be registered etc, etc, etc.

[Smith]

It amazes me how every SCOTUS ruling on 1A is understood to automatically mean leave alone, but every 2a ruling is meet with clever ways around the new ruling. Just imagine if 1a was meet with the same restrictions as 2a.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

I say lets do this. If we win, fine. If we dont...I guess every man will have to decide that for himself.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If they want to regulate weapons, it should only be in regard to

felons. The federal government should be upholding the 2nd just as

it does with the 1st. Otherwise leave us alone. If they can own a bazooka, so should you or I. It's all about protecting us from tyranny, and I see a lot of that going on right now.

[DaveTN]

I don’t think there are going to be any surprises. The right to own guns in your home is an individual right; the regulation of bearing arms is a State Right. That is how the SCOTUS has already ruled; I don’t see anything different happening in this case.

[Chief07]

History is on our side. Gun control does nothing to stop, reduce, prevent crimeor protect honest citizens.

It' just about control.

This will go by the way like Heller vs. DC.

Another win for the Second Ammendment.

[JayC]

It amazes me how every SCOTUS ruling on 1A is understood to automatically mean leave alone, but every 2a ruling is meet with clever ways around the new ruling. Just imagine if 1a was meet with the same restrictions as 2a.

The 1A isn't as safe as you think... And has been abused in the recent past by both R's and D's... Free speech zones anybody?

Virtually all of our natural rights are under assault by forces in BOTH political parties.

[ukerduker]

If they can own a bazooka, so should you or I. It's all about protecting us from tyranny, and I see a lot of that going on right now.

Bingo- I believe that sums up the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2A. It means having the ability to possess anything necessary to defeat a tyrannical gov't. Lawmakers would rather rule with an iron hand than permit the average citizen to own these tools.

Personally, I don't believe our nation will return to a more normal state in a peaceful fashion.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

Thanks for posting this. I think we will win this one, but we'll have to wait and see...

"If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person," said Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ms. Alvarez, if you can't read that and understand it, I can't help you. Or maybe you're just refusing to understand it.

Personally, I don't believe our nation will return to a more normal state in a peaceful fashion.

We gotta do all we can to restore the republic peacefully. I believe we can do it, though I respect your opinion and those who share it.

But in any case, I am not giving up any more rights. We gotta hold the line. You know what, forget holding the line... let's go repeal the '86 machine gun ban. They say the best defense is a good offense...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But in any case, I am not giving up any more rights. We gotta hold the line. You know what, forget holding the line... let's go repeal the '86 machine gun ban. They say the best defense is a good offense...

It's hard enough to get anyone to even utter those words,

refreshing to hear. That's not the only one but a start. I

have been wondering if it could be a part of the decision

in this case: if they ruled the 2nd to finally be that right

that can't be taken at all, which is what the founders

wrote it that way for.