Supreme Court could throw out handgun laws

By The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 -- 12:00 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

scotussupremecourt112007 Supreme Court could throw out handgun lawsThe Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said 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."

Story continues below...

"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.

The high court took his suggestion Wednesday.

Powered by Mochila

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • Fellow Liberals: it's our 2nd Amendment too. Gun control should be about hitting your target
  • starvapor
    "A well regulated Militia"? With only hand guns and rifles?...To fight the Red Coats or Blackwater Thugs?
    That must mean in order to level the playing/fighting field...I should be able to own maybe an Abrams Tank, some Apache Helicopters, a few F-16 Fighter Jets, some surface to surface missiles, etc. to support the philosophy behind being able to protect myself from whatever could be thrown at me.
    Would I be crossing the line to ask for some nukes I could toss around also?
  • Phil E. Drifter
    Anti-gun laws only protect criminals, who will have guns regardless of applicable laws.
  • Savantster
    Clearly, you can't just "ban" the "ownership" of guns, of any flavor. You can restrict where they may be carried, but you can't tell law abiding citizens that they simply can't own a gun.

    The question is, how deeply will the SCOTUS gut laws.
  • RadicalCaveman
    And clearly, you can't ban the ownership of nuclear warheads, either. What are you smoking, dude? Of course you can ban the ownership of guns, as practically all other economically advanced countries do. The fact that our so-called "Supreme Court" is likely to rule otherwise is simply one more symptom of how sick and loony our political culture is. The very idea that people have a fundamental right to own firearms is one of the craziest things I have ever heard. If there is one thing people DON'T have an intrinsic right to own, it's weapons of any kind.
  • everafter
    gosh darn.. vern.. lookie thar -- it's, yet another, moron
  • lousgirl84
    I totally agree!!!!
  • Phil E. Drifter
    The very idea that people have a fundamental right to own firearms is one of the craziest things I have ever heard.

    You, sir, are a moron.
  • DoctorLeeinAtlanta
    What is a "A well regulated Militia"?
    Is there one or are there any?
    What kind of sign-up is there?
    Is there any kind of boot camp training involved?
  • Thos. Jefferson
    Rad.Caveman, So by your logic, We, as human beings have no Right to defend ourselves from the tyranny of oppressive government? I'm sure the Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust would agree with you. You sir, are obviously a paid poster from the current regime in power in this country.As far as the nuke thing goes, why shouldn't We be armed as well as our would be oppressors?
  • lousgirl84
    You are no Thomas Jefferson.
  • Satan
    "And clearly, you can't ban the ownership of nuclear warheads, either. What are you smoking, dude? Of course you can ban the ownership of guns, as practically all other economically advanced countries do." - Lol, so I suppose you'd be all for a ban on sharp or pointy objects, because less face it, in the history of mankind, more people have been murdered with sharp and point objects than handguns. Why I'll bet more people were stabbed this week than were killed by nuclear weapons all last year. And lets face it, with all the trouble Iran is having producing a nuke, gee, they could have just stabbed us with scissors.

    Not to mention the reality that when handguns are banned, only criminals will have them. That makes lots of sense. Maybe you should move to a ghetto for a while, get stabbed.

    Listen dude, I'll smoke weed if I feel like it, I'll own a gun if I feel like it. Is there something wrong with smoking weed as well? You can want and wish and cry all you fucking want, nothing will change that ever.

    What kind of a dipshit thinks insinuates that smoking weed invalidates any thought you have on any subject and what kind of a moron brings the question of nuclear arms ownership into a debate on personal firearms? Lol, get a clue dummy.
  • everafter
    "..... when they peel it from my cold dead fingers "
  • Anyone whose seriously read U.S. history on this matter knows full well the Second Amendment never intended that the criminally insane, outlaws, the irrational, and the rest of the scum of the earth, should have the right to weapons such as swords, cannons, and firelocks.
  • tvfreezone
    I am against gun control. Who should we surrender our guns to? The cops? The federal government? How about AQ? A well armed citizenry will make terrorists think twice but would be of little avail against our own "government."
  • cire60
    'Supreme Court could throw out handgun laws"
    Will that mean that the public will be allowed in their court chambers packing heat?
  • Thos. Jefferson
    lousgirl84, How could you possibly know anything about me?
  • Phil E. Drifter
    I'm hoping they're talking about the laws which require me to fork over $25 and have the signatures of 2 friends on a form before I can 'legally' carry a concealed weapon. (Yup, that's pretty unconstitutional. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?)
  • edward
    They not talking all weapons...just handguns. You can keep your big boom stick. Pistols are over rated anyway...in all the war footage you've ever seen, how often do you see someone with a pistol drawn.
  • piltdown
    Wow, talk about another Scalia-led attempt to destroy state's rights!

    If your state has voted to ban them, the Federal government should have no say in it at all, right?

    C'mon, gun-nuts. Which side are you on here?

    Do you believe in unfettered ownership rights, or do you believe in "State's Rights"?

    C'mon, Paultards. Which one is it? You can't pick both.
blog comments powered by Disqus