High court to define reach of gun control laws

The case marks the second round of high stakes litigation over the breadth of the Second Amendment and will likely have wider impact nationwide than the first. In June 2008, the justices struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and declared for the first time that the Second Amendment covers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The new question is whether the 2008 decision also applies to cities and states, or only to laws in the federal government and its enclaves, such as Washington. It sets up another major constitutional question with ramifications for scores of mostly urban gun regulations.

Read more here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-26-gun-control-laws_N.htm

 

Very relevant.

 

maybe you didnt get it.....this may help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg

 

I got it Neontroll.

 

typical

 

Can we citizens impose a ban on politicians? Damnit...ammo was just starting to get somewhat resonable.

 

I was thinking the SAME thing! And, more readily available again.

 

When the loony left loses this court case they will indeed start going after ammunition. I've already heard rumors of 5yr shelf-life ammo to prevent stockpiling. Do you think the ammo manufacturers will care? Nope.

 

Well f*ck. If the second amendment doesn't apply to all cities and states, than I guess the first amendment such as freedom of religion, and speech, and all other amendments do not apply too.

The question whether it does not or does apply to all cities and states shouldn't even be a question at all.
All people in cities and states nationwide should have this right, because it IS a right. Just like freedom of speech, and many others on the same list. It can't get any more obvious than that.

 

I have faith in our high courts, and let us hope that they see the light of reason and restore to the citizens their right to bear arms!

 

i consider bearing arms to be an unalienable right in reguards to self preservation.

 

Supreme Court Guns Case Preview

February 28, 2010 - 5:33 PM | by: Lee Ross
The battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear a case that is a follow-up to their historic ruling in 2008 that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Sunday, Fox's Shannon Bream spoke with a couple of key figures in the gun rights debate: lawyer Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gura argued and won D.C. v. Heller two years ago and will appear before the Court Tuesday.
Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that historic ruling overturning a Washington D.C. gun ban doesn't apply to the 50 states. On Tuesday, the justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called "incorporation" but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights--including the Second Amendment--to the states. The case challenges Chicago's restrictive gun law. Dozens of groups have added their voices to the case including the National Rifle Association and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.
Gura represents Otis McDonald who is challenging the Chicago law. "Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history," Gura said.
Henigan says the case is Gura's to lose based on the premise that the same five judges who were part of the Heller majority will join together and carry the day in this case. But Henigan emphasizes another part of the Heller decision where he says "the Court implicitly recognized that there is still broad legislative authority to enact reasonable laws to reduce the risk from that right. And we hope the Court gives similar assurances in this case."

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/28/supreme-court-guns-case-preview/

 

Great post Matt, thanks for letting me know!

 

Anytime.

 

Tomorrow if you want to read the oral arguments of the case you should be able to find them here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

The brief is named McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Here is another good resource. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

This case will be a landmark case just like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

 

Thanks for the links!

 

I read about 50 pages of the transcript of the opening arguments for the case.

They are basically agreeing on how to argue the case. I have never read anything like it! It reads like a novel and some parts are actually funny.

Because I'm not an attorney there are many things that I did not grasp, but what is really interesting, downright intriguing to me, is that I can see just how the Justices think.

It's a pretty cool experience.

the Justices regularly interrupt counsel to interject their comments.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

Counselors
​

ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of Petitioners.

PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners.

JAMES A. FELDMAN, ESQ., Special Assistant Corporation Counsel; on behalf of Respondents.
​

 

I dont really understand whats going on. The bill of rights is only on the federal level and not on the state level...what does that mean?

 

Keason, In 1833 there was a court case Barron v. Baltimore.

Attorneys will use precedence from past cases as ammo to achieve their goals and win arguments. All Gura was doing was citing a past case.

Even with that said I still don't understand why Gura cited the case.