Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    01.29.02
    Age
    49
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    22,946
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:37 PM
    Likes
    842
    Liked 1,229 Times in 448 Posts

    Here we go.... Supreme Court considering to ban handguns...

    Here we go.... Supreme Court considering ban ON handguns...

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.

    Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the city's outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.

    The case is to be argued early next year.

    Last year, the justices struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well.

    The court has previously said that most, but not all, rights laid out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights serve as checks on state as well as federal restrictions. Separately, 44 state constitutions already enshrine gun rights.

    Though faced with potential limits from the high court on their ability to enact laws and regulations in this area, 34 states weighed in on the gun- rights side before the justices agreed to take the case Wednesday, an indication of the enduring strength of the National Rifle Association and its allies.

    The gun case was among several the court added to its docket for the term that begins Monday. Others include:

    • A challenge to part of a law that makes it a crime to provide financial and other aid to any group designated a terrorist organization.

    • A dispute over when new, harsher penalties can be given to sex offenders who don't register with state sex offender databases.

    • Whether to throw out a human rights lawsuit against a former prime minister of Somalia who is accused of overseeing killings and other atrocities. The issue is whether a federal law gives the former official, Mohamed Ali Samantar, immunity from lawsuits in U.S. courts.

    In the gun case, outright handgun bans appear to be limited to Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill. But a ruling against those ordinances probably would "open up all the gun regulations in the country to constitutional scrutiny, of which there are quite a few," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor whose recent book "Out of Range" explores the often bitter national debate over guns.

    Already, Alan Gura, who led the legal challenge to the Washington law and represents the plaintiff in Chicago, is suing to overturn the District of Columbia's prohibition on carrying firearms outside a person's home. Illinois and Wisconsin have similar restrictions.

    In voiding Washington's handgun ban last year, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that gun rights, like the right to speech, are limited and that many gun control measures could remain in place.

    Ultimately, said Tushnet, the court will have to decide, possibly restriction by restriction, which limits are reasonable.

    "It's very hard to know where this court would draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable," he said.

    NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he hopes the court rules that "core fundamental freedoms like speech, religion and, we believe, the right to keep and bear arms are intended to apply to every individual in the country."

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the court's decision to take up the new case was unsurprising in light of last year's ruling.

    These cases should "take the extremes off the table," Helmke said, referring to bans on guns and unlimited gun rights. "What's critical for us is how the court goes about fleshing out what the limits are."

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, which under state law requires handgun permits and a safety course, said he hopes the court brings clarity to gun laws. "My hope is that they will decide that reasonable restrictions, which I think is the way most reasonable people in this country think, are appropriate," Bloomberg said.

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago had upheld the gun bans as legitimate expressions of local and state rights.

    Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the ruling 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.

    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.

    The high court took the suggestion Wednesday.

    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.

    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.

    She replaced Justice David Souter, who dissented in the 5-4 Washington case, so the five-justice majority remains intact.

    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 is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.
    Last edited by voivod; 09.30.09 at 04:47 PM.
    "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” -- Gen. George S. Patton

  2. #2
    Eruption
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    875
    Favorite VH Album

    I have to pick?
    Last Online

    10.05.17 @ 11:44 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 14 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Seems to me this could be a ruling to ban the laws that ban handguns.
    Your favorite band sucks.

  3. #3
    Forum Frontman fudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.22.08
    Age
    38
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    14,311
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair warning, 5150
    Favorite VH Song

    HAIL, love walks in, 5150
    Last Online

    @
    Likes
    1,322
    Liked 6,353 Times in 3,193 Posts


    Premium Member

    Donor

    Default

    Oh boy. This is not gonna end well.

  4. #4
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fuddman5150 View Post
    Oh boy. This is not gonna end well.
    The thread or the ruling?

  5. #5
    Wear the fox hat... Filthy 150's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.13.03
    Location
    Right here.
    Posts
    4,121
    Favorite VH Album

    5150
    Favorite VH Song

    Drop Dead Legs
    Last Online

    10.16.17 @ 11:43 AM
    Likes
    31
    Liked 17 Times in 10 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wray View Post
    The thread or the ruling?
    Neither.
    "Here's to swimmin' with bow legged women."
    Quint- Boat Captain
    --------------------------------------------------


    "As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly"
    Arthur Carlson- Radio Station GM
    --------------------------------------------------


    "I think you're all fucked in the head. We're ten hours from the fucking fun park, and you wanna bail out! Well, I'll tell you something, this is no longer a vacation . . . it's a quest! It's a quest for fun! I'm gonna have fun, and you're gonna have fun! We're all gonna have so much fucking fun we'll need plastic surgery to remove our Goddamn smiles! You'll be whistling Zip-a-dee-doo-da out of your assholes! "
    Clark W. Griswold- Food Additive Designer
    ---------------------------------------------------


    VIVA TEXAS LINKERS WEEKEND!
    Round I = Done!
    Round II = Done!
    Round III = Done!
    Round IV = Done!
    Round V = Done!
    Round VI = Done!
    Round VII = Done!
    Round VIII = Done!

  6. #6
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filthy 150 View Post
    Neither.
    Why do you think the ruling won't end well?

  7. #7
    Wear the fox hat... Filthy 150's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.13.03
    Location
    Right here.
    Posts
    4,121
    Favorite VH Album

    5150
    Favorite VH Song

    Drop Dead Legs
    Last Online

    10.16.17 @ 11:43 AM
    Likes
    31
    Liked 17 Times in 10 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wray View Post
    Why do you think the ruling won't end well?
    I don't think the ruling itself won't go bad. The Justices won't be throwing down, but the 'Ted Nugents' and 'Michael Moores' are going to be at each others throats.

    Either:
    (A) Nothing changes and the people pushing for it claim the system is broken since what they wanted didn't happen.

    or

    (B) a ban is enacted and the people not wanting a change claim the system is broken since what they wanted didn't happen.

    Either way, it will be the fault of the respective President/Congress that appointed/confirmed the Justice who swings the vote.
    "Here's to swimmin' with bow legged women."
    Quint- Boat Captain
    --------------------------------------------------


    "As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly"
    Arthur Carlson- Radio Station GM
    --------------------------------------------------


    "I think you're all fucked in the head. We're ten hours from the fucking fun park, and you wanna bail out! Well, I'll tell you something, this is no longer a vacation . . . it's a quest! It's a quest for fun! I'm gonna have fun, and you're gonna have fun! We're all gonna have so much fucking fun we'll need plastic surgery to remove our Goddamn smiles! You'll be whistling Zip-a-dee-doo-da out of your assholes! "
    Clark W. Griswold- Food Additive Designer
    ---------------------------------------------------


    VIVA TEXAS LINKERS WEEKEND!
    Round I = Done!
    Round II = Done!
    Round III = Done!
    Round IV = Done!
    Round V = Done!
    Round VI = Done!
    Round VII = Done!
    Round VIII = Done!

  8. #8
    Hang 'Em High Wray's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.17.03
    Posts
    6,596
    Last Online

    08.16.15 @ 10:29 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filthy 150 View Post
    I don't think the ruling itself won't go bad. The Justices won't be throwing down, but the 'Ted Nugents' and 'Michael Moores' are going to be at each others throats.

    Either:
    (A) Nothing changes and the people pushing for it claim the system is broken since what they wanted didn't happen.

    or

    (B) a ban is enacted and the people not wanting a change claim the system is broken since what they wanted didn't happen.

    Either way, it will be the fault of the respective President/Congress that appointed/confirmed the Justice who swings the vote.
    Frankly, most of this is fairly cut-and-dry, in my opinion. I think Justice Scalia's opinion was spot on when he said basically that Americans have the right to bear arms, but it is not an absolute right. The complication comes from deciding what is reasonable and what isn't. That's definitely not a black and white issue.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court rules against affirmative action
    By Jesus H Christ in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04.28.14, 03:52 PM
  2. California Supreme Court: Websites Not Libel In 3rd Party Posting
    By Axxman300 in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11.20.06, 02:50 PM
  3. Who has that "court transcript" link of Michael Jackson's '93 court appearance?
    By dirtymovies in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02.20.03, 07:25 PM
  4. Supreme Court OKs Random Drug Tests in Schools
    By Pasadena Murdock in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06.29.02, 12:30 PM
  5. Breaking News!! GOD overrules US Supreme Court Verdict!!
    By FORD in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12.24.00, 09:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •