|
|
|
Welcome to Outdoor Life
Subscribe to Outdoor Life
Free Gift with Paid Order
Recent Comments
Categories
Recent PostsArchivesSyndicate   The Gun Shots |
December 03, 2009
Legal Expert: McDonald Decision Expected To Build Upon Heller - 6
by John Haughey
With oral arguments before the Supreme Court scheduled to begin on March 2, 2010, the Cato Institite and the Heartland Institute are among the nation's most elite think tanks filing amicus briefs in support of the Second Amendment Foundation's and Illinois State Rifle Association's lawsuit contesting the Constititionality of the Chicago gun band. In a Nov. 30 article written by Ashley C. Stinnett for publicnuisancewire.com, Maureen Martin, a senior fellow for legal affairs with the Heartland Institute, said McDonald v. Chicago could be a bigger landmark case than last year’s Heller decision, and that this year’s ruling will build upon the Heller precedent, extending the application of the Second Amendment to the states. “In the Heller case, the District of Columbia (federal) ordinance, very similar to Chicago's, was declared unconstitutional," Martin told Stinnett. "The Court said, however, that some reasonable regulation is constitutionally permissible but not a total ban. Since that 2008 ruling, the District has been pushing the boundaries, trying to continue a ban." For more, go to:http://publicnuisancewire.com/stories/211115-mcdonald-decision-expected-to-build-upon-heller Related articles: -- Cato Files Brief to Extend Second Amendment Rights, Provide Protections for Privileges or Immunities; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/cato-files-brief-to-extend-second-amendment-rights-provide-protections-for-privileges-or-immunities/ -- CATO's brief: http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/mcdonald_v_chicago.pdf -- Black police group endorses same anti-gun edicts imposed by slave owners; http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d1-Black-police-group-endorses-same-antigun-edicts-imposed-by-slave-owners -- Chicago gun case: Top globalist cops say keeping Americans disarmed is 'reasonable''; http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Chicago-gun-case-Top-globalist-cops-say-keeping-Americans-disarmed-is-reasonable -- Delegation fights to keep Second Amendment rights consistent across city and state lines; http://www.littlechicagoreview.com/pages/full_story/full_story?content_instance_id=4839551 -- Peterson Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Second Amendment Rights; http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2009/nov/25/peterson-asks-supreme-court-uphold-second-amendmen/ -- Heflin announces support for NRA stance in current court case; http://www.myplainview.com/articles/2009/11/25/news/doc4b0db024ece41350274124.txt -- 2nd Amendment gun rights should apply to all 50 states; http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20091124/EDIT05/311249946/1021/EDIT -- Gun rights for all, Hutchison says; http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/11/gun-rights-for-all-hutchison-s.html -- Gun opponents up in arms as Jerry Brown aids NRA; Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/23/BAFI1AO83D.DTL#ixzz0YUYgQy9L -- Must states abide by the Second Amendment?; http://publicnuisancewire.com/stories/210999-must-states-abide-by-the-second-amendment -- How Can You Lose Your Second Amendment Rights?; http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/25/how-can-you-lose-your-second-a |
|
OutdoorLife.com is part of the Bonnier Outdoor Group Network
Copyright © 2009 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments (6)
"The Court said, however, that some reasonable regulation is constitutionally permissible but not a total ban."
It is very tough for a bunch of law makers to be "Reasonable" especially in the state of IL. I lived there for over 6 years and I don't think the state legislators were reasonable once.
whats reasonable regulation that means let the hoods and thugs have the upper hand.i dont think so forget the regulation let law abiding citizens arm up and the crime rate will go down its a fact!
This is an important decision. It's not the end, but the right decision from the court could go a long way to limit how much local governments can restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
So when does 'reasonable' become 'unreasonable' and who decides it? Not the people!
Criminals have all the advantages over law abiding people. Little by little we're being ruled by Chicago-style thugs.
You guys are right to question the word reasonable. The term leaves a lot of room for interpretion and it will allow local governments to keep trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws by calling them reasonable restrictions. D.C. is already doing that in an effort to "ban" handguns without calling it a ban. They will probably be back in court soon on whether their new restrictions are a ban or "reasonable" restrictions. If the Chicago law is struck down, as it probably will be, the language of the court's decision will determine the direction of this fight for our rights. I hope the court provides a very strict, narrow definition of what is a "reasonable" restriction, but I don't think they will do that. More likely, they will leave it at just "reasonable" and the case will be a small but significant victory. Next step: local governments will cobble together various laws that amount to a virtual ban without actually banning anything. Then we go back to arguing about what is reasonable.
I have to agree with you Seadog, it is for the Supremes to spell things out, but do they? Heller closed a loophole, yet left a hole a semi could drive through. It would be nice if they were to say "the Second Amendment applies equally in all States and Territories of the USA, and the rights therein are clear. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Period, end of discussion!" But then look at all of the revenue the lawyers would be missing! I look for a narrow ruling, as you do. Must have job security for the bar!
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
"The Court said, however, that some reasonable regulation is constitutionally permissible but not a total ban."
It is very tough for a bunch of law makers to be "Reasonable" especially in the state of IL. I lived there for over 6 years and I don't think the state legislators were reasonable once.
This is an important decision. It's not the end, but the right decision from the court could go a long way to limit how much local governments can restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
So when does 'reasonable' become 'unreasonable' and who decides it? Not the people!
Criminals have all the advantages over law abiding people. Little by little we're being ruled by Chicago-style thugs.
You guys are right to question the word reasonable. The term leaves a lot of room for interpretion and it will allow local governments to keep trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws by calling them reasonable restrictions. D.C. is already doing that in an effort to "ban" handguns without calling it a ban. They will probably be back in court soon on whether their new restrictions are a ban or "reasonable" restrictions. If the Chicago law is struck down, as it probably will be, the language of the court's decision will determine the direction of this fight for our rights. I hope the court provides a very strict, narrow definition of what is a "reasonable" restriction, but I don't think they will do that. More likely, they will leave it at just "reasonable" and the case will be a small but significant victory. Next step: local governments will cobble together various laws that amount to a virtual ban without actually banning anything. Then we go back to arguing about what is reasonable.
I have to agree with you Seadog, it is for the Supremes to spell things out, but do they? Heller closed a loophole, yet left a hole a semi could drive through. It would be nice if they were to say "the Second Amendment applies equally in all States and Territories of the USA, and the rights therein are clear. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Period, end of discussion!" But then look at all of the revenue the lawyers would be missing! I look for a narrow ruling, as you do. Must have job security for the bar!
whats reasonable regulation that means let the hoods and thugs have the upper hand.i dont think so forget the regulation let law abiding citizens arm up and the crime rate will go down its a fact!
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)