High court to define reach of gun control laws

I believe it will ultimately be a 5-4 verdict in favor of the Constitution. Either way it goes, it's an indicator of where the country is heading, I think.
The fact that at least 4 justices will likely vote against the 2A is enough to make me sick. This should be a no-brainer.

 

Yeah I feel the same way. From reading the opening arguments, it did not go well for counselor Feldman (City of Chicago).

 

http://www.nraila.org/McDonald/

Click here for complete transcript of the oral arguments in McDonald V. Chicago.​

News and Editorial Coverage of the Case
Supreme Court appears set to widen gun rights
The Supreme Court majority that two years ago ruled a near total ban on handguns in the District to be unconstitutional seemed equally willing on Tuesday to extend the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states.
The Washington Times
New ammunition for gun rights
The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.
The Wall Street Journal
2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process," since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog
Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
The Los Angeles Times
Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns
At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago's gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
The New York Times
2nd Amendment extension likely: McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process," since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
SCOTUS blog
Scotus blog
Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions.
The Los Angeles Times
Justices seem to lean toward extending individual right to own guns
At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago's gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
The New York Times
What Do the Supremes Think of Chicago's Gun Ban?
Despite the push by Chicago to make McDonald v. City of Chicago about crime, a majority on the Supreme Court today appeared to want nothing to do that argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy described the right to self defense as being as "fundamental" as the right to freedom of speech. The question the court faces is how many of Chicago's regulations beyond the ban should survive.
Fox News
Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth
In the 2008 "Heller" decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation's capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.
Fox News
Guns before the court
Today the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that is likely to result in a landmark decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court will consider whether the individual right to bear arms it recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller can be enforced against State and local governments. In doing so, it may address more broadly the way in which individual rights are enforced against the States and the extent to which State and local governments can regulate or restrict those rights.
American Spectator
Does the Second Amendment Apply Outside the Home?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside of jurisdictions controlled by the federal government. The court will almost certainly say yes, and soon it may consider a question that should be equally easy to answer: whether the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.
Townhall
Our most basic rights
The Second Amendment of the Constitution 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." The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday as to what that actually means.
The Herald Journal (Spartanburg, S.C.)
Gun rights: High court hears another case
In a 5-4 decision in the summer of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty was apoplectic. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," he predicted, demanding that the City Council promptly enact onerous new gun control rigmarole that would "get around" the Heller decision.
"Armageddon never arrived," John Lott Jr. points out in a March 1 essay for FOXNews.com. Quite to the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by a whopping 25 percent from 2008 to 2009, Mr. Lott reports. D.C.'s murder rate "is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washington's lowest since 1967."
The Las Vegas Review Journal
A few thoughts on the McDonald argument
Based on a quick read of the oral argument transcript, a few things stood out:
1.The Privileges or Immunities arguments never really got off the ground. None of the Justices seemed in favor of that approach, at least based on the questions. (Justice Thomas, as is his custom, asked no questions.) Only about 10-12 minutes of the questioning even concerned the P or I route, and the questioning seemed mostly focused on trying to understand the nature of the claim. For my VC co bloggers and many VC commenters who hoped today would signal the beginning of the libertarian constitutional revolution, there doesn't seem to be much room for optimism.
The Volokh Conspiracy
More guns, less crime
The District of Columbia's murder rate plummeted by an astounding 25 percent last year, much faster than for the US as a whole or for similarly sized cities. If you had asked Chicago's Mayor Daley, that wasn't supposed to happen. The Supreme Court's 2008 decision to strike down DC's handgun ban and gunlock requirements should have lead to a surge in murders, with Wild West shootouts. The Supreme Court might keep Daley's predictions in mind today as they hear the oral arguments on Tuesday in the Chicago handgun ban case.
Big Government

Press Releases:

Michigan Attorney General: Confident U.S. Supreme Court will protect right to bear arms
Attorney General Mike Cox today said he is confident the United States Supreme Court will again protect the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution as they hear oral arguments over Chicago's handgun ban. The local case has national implications because it could put an end to state and local infringement of gun ownership.
Office of the Michigan Attorney General
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attends landmark Second Amendment argument
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court, which this morning heard the Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. The landmark case involves a constitutional challenge to the City of Chicago's prohibitions on handgun possession. Attorney General Abbott led a national effort to protect all Americans' right to keep and bear arms by forging a 38 state coalition that defended the Second Amendment and argued that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional.
Attorney General of Texas
Ohio Attorney General: Compelling arguments today in defense of Second Amendment rights
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of McDonald v. Chicago and is poised to decide whether the Second Amendment right of people to keep and bear arms applies not only to the federal government, as the court held two years ago, but also to state and local governments.
Ohio Attorney General
Ohio Rep. Space: Supreme Court must stand up and again defend right to bear arms
Anticipating the start of oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, U.S. Rep. Zack Space today called on the Supreme Court to again stand up for the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans. Space has been one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for Second Amendment Rights and Second Amendment issues.
"The Second Amendment is crystal clear: Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms," Space said. "We've seen this Supreme Court side with Second Amendment advocates before, and we're demanding that they rule again in defense of Americans' Constitutional rights."
Representative Zack Space, U.S. House of Representatives
Florida Senator LeMieux: Right to bear arms is fundamental
U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R FL) today made the following statement after attending the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago. The Supreme Court is weighing whether the Second Amendment protection against government infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms should apply to state and local governments. The federal government is already restricted from such an infringement on personal liberties.
Senator LeMieux said: "Before our nation's founding, the right to keep and bear arms was accepted as a fundamental individual right. The Framers of the Constitution were careful to assure that this right would not be infringed by expressly preserving it in the Second Amendment.
Senator George LeMieux, U.S. Senate
Kansas Rep. Tiahrt: Supreme Court should bring Chicago back from left
U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R Kan.) today issued the following statement as the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing opening arguments in a case that challenges whether or not local and state entities can take away the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens to defend themselves in their own homes. Tiahrt has fought to protect the privacy of every firearm owner in America with the Tiahrt trace data amendment that has been attacked by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and liberal gun control organizations.
Representative Todd Tiahrt, U.S. House of Representatives
Montana Sen. Baucus: Supports 2nd Amendment by attending Supreme Court gun rights arguments
Montana's senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus today was present at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments for a case that may have far reaching affects on gun owners in Montana and across the country. The high court is considering a case that is expected to establish whether or not state and local governments are required to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to own a gun.
"I'm extremely interested in the outcome of this case," Baucus said after the hearing. "Oral arguments were compelling. The bottom line is that all law biding citizens have the right to bear arms -- whether it's for hunting in the great outdoors or for protection. It's spelled out right in the Constitution, and we've got to protect it. You can bet I'll be keeping a close eye on this case as it moves forward."
Senator Max Baucus, U.S. Senate

 

Thanks for the post Packer, I understand whats going on now. We as a nation should exile chicago from the u.s...they can have their dumb gun laws and we will keep our second amendment. haha

 

My wife's family escaped Chi Town like 15 yrs ago and came to AZ. One big reason was because of the gun laws.

 

Good on them. If I lived anywhere other than TX it would have to be AZ

 

Chicago's pointless handgun ban



City gun ordinances proved to be a failure

When Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982, it was part of a trend. Washington, D.C., had done it in 1976, and a few Chicago suburbs took up the cause in the following years. They all expected to reduce the number of guns and thus curtail bloodshed.

District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer told The Washington Post in 2007, "It's a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you'll have." Nadine Winters, a member of the Washington City Council in 1976, said she assumed at the time that the policy "would spread to other places."

But the fad never really caught fire — even before last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the D.C. law and cast doubt on the others, including the Chicago ordinance before the court Tuesday. The Second Amendment may kill such restrictions, but in most places, it wasn't needed to keep them from hatching in the first place.

Maybe that's because there were so many flaws in the basic idea. Or maybe it was because strict gun control makes even less sense at the municipal level than it does on a broader scale. At any rate, the policy turned out to be a comprehensive dud.

In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.

Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.

Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it.

If we were starting out in a country with zero guns, it might be possible to keep such weapons away from bad guys. But that's not this country, which has more than 200 million firearms in private hands and a large, perpetual supply of legal handguns.

Only a tiny percentage of those weapons has to be diverted to the underground trade for crooks to acquire all the firepower they need. While gun bans greatly impede the law-abiding, they pose only a trivial inconvenience to the lawless.

This is especially true at the local level. Banning guns from one city makes about as much sense as banning them on one block.

It's hard enough to halt the flow of guns over international borders, where governments police traffic. It's impossible to stop them from crossing municipal boundaries — which are unmonitored, undefended and practically invisible.

Tens of thousands of cars enter Washington and Chicago each day from places where guns are easily and legally obtainable. Any of those vehicles could be transporting a carton of pistols to sell to willing thugs. If you're on an island, you're going to get splashed by the waves.

The proponents obviously knew all along this city-by-city approach had serious shortcomings. But they figured it was bound to curtail gun availability somewhat. They also hoped that by prohibiting handguns in one place, they were beginning a bigger process.

First, they expected that other cities and states would follow suit. Second, they wagered that strict controls at the local level would acclimate Americans to new regulations at the national level.

But things didn't work out that way. The persistence of crime in supposedly gun-free zones didn't build support for broader gun control by showing the limits of piecemeal legislation. It weakened the case, by proving that such regulations have little impact on the people who present the biggest danger. Instead of a broad upward avenue, it was a dead end.

Gun control supporters fear that if the Supreme Court invalidates local handgun bans, the consequences will be nothing but bad. That would be easier to believe if the laws had ever done any good.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column,0,4938075.column

 

good post, I agree with everything that is said.

 

Thomas Jefferson on "The Right to Bear Arms" In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).​

 

What? The high court can't see what was set down to keep us free and safe from tyrants, tyranny, and bad guys. be it from over sea's, over here, down the street or coming in your house? well lets hear what was said from one of the bad guys who didn't want to come over here.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."​

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
​

(Japanese Navy) WWll killed in action 1943 solomon islands
​