Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:55 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 
 Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Chicago Gun Ban 
Author Message
 Post subject: Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Chicago Gun Ban
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:15 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 810
Location: Northern MN
Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Handguns in Chicago

by the Associated Press

Quote:
CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park.

The three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms is not an adequate basis for lawsuits attacking local gun ordinances.

The National Rifle Associated argued the Second Amendment makes such ordinances unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a District of Columbia case that the Second Amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self protection. The appeals court upheld dismissal of the lawsuit on the ground that the District of Columbia, unlike Chicago and Oak Park, is a federal jurisdiction.



For some reason, I didn't get any warm fuzzies from reading this, nor did I get a tingle up my leg.

:roll:

_________________
Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY"
Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:45 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS.

HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

Yeah not fuzzy.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:53 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
To quote a friend of mine- "That's a special kind of stupid, right there."

:evil:

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:22 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: SE MPLS
Dick Unger wrote:
HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

There have been two separate excuses for courts to claim that the 2nd wasn't relevant to state cases. 1, that it doesn't protect an individual right, and 2, that it doesn't apply to the states.

The 9th Circus had established a clear precedent that #1. And Heller clearly established that #1 was false. So the 9th Circus quite properly recognized that their prior precedent had been overturned. And apparently, there was no established precedent with regard to #2, so they reviewed #2 and held that it was false. Which makes them the second circuit to adopt that position - the 5th did so in Emerson a few years back.

Other circuits do have established precedents with respect to #2, and overturning a precedent simply because it was wrongly and fraudulently established (the Case and Tot cases that established this line of precedents were clear examples of making it up as you go along) isn't something that courts like to do. So they pass the buck.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:44 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
jdege wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
HELLER did acknowlege that 2A is an individual right; it's hard to see how a federal court could rule that the individual civil right of an Anerican can be denied by and American state.

But it appears the US 7th Circuit did just that. :roll:

There have been two separate excuses for courts to claim that the 2nd wasn't relevant to state cases. 1, that it doesn't protect an individual right, and 2, that it doesn't apply to the states.

The 9th Circus had established a clear precedent that #1. And Heller clearly established that #1 was false. So the 9th Circus quite properly recognized that their prior precedent had been overturned. And apparently, there was no established precedent with regard to #2, so they reviewed #2 and held that it was false. Which makes them the second circuit to adopt that position - the 5th did so in Emerson a few years back.

Other circuits do have established precedents with respect to #2, and overturning a precedent simply because it was wrongly and fraudulently established (the Case and Tot cases that established this line of precedents were clear examples of making it up as you go along) isn't something that courts like to do. So they pass the buck.


Somebody's going to have to take this back up the judicial ladder again until SCOTUS defines their decision in more detail.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:04 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 203
Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?

_________________
"It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake"


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:10 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
djeepp wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


SCOTUS decisions are normally very narrow. The Court may only consider the issues brought directly before it, and in Heller the ruling only directly applied to the DC laws. Technically DC is not a state...hence the current fun.

One of the state cases will have to make it up the queue and be heard.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:53 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 203
mrokern wrote:
djeepp wrote:
Dick Unger wrote:
The problem for the future is that HELLER did NOT acknowlege that the 2A was incorporated against the states. The conservatives claim to like "states rights" and the liberals don't like guns, so there may be no relief from the SCOTUS..


I don't understand this. Can you clarify?


SCOTUS decisions are normally very narrow. The Court may only consider the issues brought directly before it, and in Heller the ruling only directly applied to the DC laws. Technically DC is not a state...hence the current fun.

One of the state cases will have to make it up the queue and be heard.

-Mark


I was referring more to the second sentence.

Anyone want to take bets that the state in question will be Montana?

_________________
"It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake"


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:47 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
The basis for federalism and states rights is the 10th amendment which states that:

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The 2nd amendment, and Heller upheld this, that firearms ownership are an individual right. Therefore it's been specifically prohibited from the states.

While Heller allowed that SOME regulation was allowed, it did specifically prohibit blanket bans, which this falls under.

Given all that, I don't see how one could rationally come to a conclusion other than that this ruling is completely wrong and will be overturned if heard by SCOTUS.

And since Roberts is still Chief Justice, I would guess it has a better than average change.

_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 9 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group