NRA appeals Chicago handgun ban to Supreme Court

[jimmy olsen]

What say the court watchers? Am I right in assuming that the Court will once again side with the NRA?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31108146/

NRA appeals handgun ban to Supreme Court

Stage set for Second Amendment battle involving states and localities

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area, setting the stage for another high court battle over Second Amendment protections for gun owners.

The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's gun rights decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia applies as well to local and state laws.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes almost immediately after a federal appeals court in Chicago said Tuesday that it is bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions which held the Second Amendment applies only to federal laws. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of an appeals court panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January.

Judges on both courts — Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York — said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.

The framers of the Constitution intended "to protect the right to keep and bear arms and other rights from state infringement," the NRA said in a filing made available at the court Thursday.

One federal appeals panel, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, has ruled that the Second Amendment does apply broadly. That court, however, is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between Alameda County and gun show promoters.

In the case now pending at the Supreme Court, 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 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."

"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.

Chicago officials said they were pleased with the appeals court ruling and would defend the local laws in front of the Supreme Court, if the justices agree to hear the NRA's case.

Any decision about that probably won't come earlier than late September.

The case is National Rifle Association v. Chicago, 08-1497.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press

[Tonitrus]

What say the court watchers? Am I right in amusing that the Court will once again side with the NRA?

What's amusing about it? 

[jimmy olsen]

What say the court watchers? Am I right in amusing that the Court will once again side with the NRA?

What's amusing about it? 

Whoops 

[Palisadoes]

I'll never understand the obsession with guns in the USA. Even when I've had a little play with rifles and other weapons on the ranges it never really appealed *that* much to me. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but it was never that much of a big deal like it seemingly is for many in the USA (i.e. you won't give up your weapons as they are your "right", as dictated by your constitution).

[Neil]

I'll never understand the obsession with guns in the USA. Even when I've had a little play with rifles and other weapons on the ranges it never really appealed *that* much to me. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but it was never that much of a big deal like it seemingly is for many in the USA (i.e. you won't give up your weapons as they are your "right", as dictated by your constitution).

The US is a big, open place without effective law-enforcement and with several groups of criminals attracted by the wealth of the place.  Guns make more sense there than they would in a smaller country with laws that doesn't have any blacks or Mexicans.

[ulmont]

What say the court watchers? Am I right in assuming that the Court will once again side with the NRA?

Very probably.  The 7th Circuit decision was based on 1800s Supreme Court precedent squarely saying that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.  This precedent has not aged well.

That doesn't mean the Court will necessarily throw out the Chicago ban, but that it will at least look at the question.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is more than a little premature to discuss how the Supreme Court might rule, becuase the Court has yet not even agreed to hear the case yet.

[ulmont]

It is more than a little premature to discuss how the Supreme Court might rule, becuase the Court has yet not even agreed to hear the case yet.

With a clear circuit split (2d and 7th vs 9th) on a major point explicitly ignored by Heller, would you really bet against the Court granting cert here?

[The Minsky Moment]

With a clear circuit split (2d and 7th vs 9th) on a major point explicitly ignored by Heller, would you really bet against the Court granting cert here?

I wouldn't bet at all.  I assume nothing.  The Court dodged incorporation in Heller for a reason.  I would not assume that 4 justices necessarily want to make this case THE case for reviewing that issue, or that they want to review this issue right now.  There are plenty of cases involving 2-1 circuit splits that don't get taken.  Maybe they take this one, maybe they don't.  If they do, then wake me up then.

[ulmont]

The Court dodged incorporation in Heller for a reason.

Because it wasn't in play.  Would be easy enough to take this case, do a per curiam saying "yeah, incorporate the 2d" and remand for further proceedings.

[The Minsky Moment]

Because it wasn't in play.  Would be easy enough to take this case, do a per curiam saying "yeah, incorporate the 2d" and remand for further proceedings.

The Court often addresses issues not in play.  In fact, it even addressed incorporation in Heller, just in a rather obscure footnote.  I don't think one can assume that all 5 members of the Heller majority are pro-incorporation, and that Heller footnote actually makes more sense if one assumes that there was not agreement on that point.  If there are only 3 solid votes for incorporation, then the Court might not take cert.  If there are only four, the justices supporting incorporation might decide to wait and see what other circuits do rather than take the case and then get a bad result.

[ulmont]

In fact, it even addressed incorporation in Heller, just in a rather obscure footnote.

Saying that the question was not presented isn't really addressing the issue.    As for the Heller majority, I don't think they would be necessary to find 5 votes for incorporation.  You can certainly believe that the 2d amendment applies to the states to the extent that it is useful, without believing that the 2d amendment protects much at all.

[Josquius]

The US is a big, open place without effective law-enforcement and with several groups of criminals attracted by the wealth of the place.  Guns make more sense there than they would in a smaller country with laws that doesn't have any blacks or Mexicans.

Guns do make more sense in big, rural N.America than in tamed Europe but still. The USians take it to crazy extremes.
The founding fathers are in their graves.

[Ed Anger]

I'll never understand the obsession with guns in the USA. Even when I've had a little play with rifles and other weapons on the ranges it never really appealed *that* much to me. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but it was never that much of a big deal like it seemingly is for many in the USA (i.e. you won't give up your weapons as they are your "right", as dictated by your constitution).

Because Americans like to kill things.

P.S., I'm wearing a gun right now. But no underwear.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can certainly believe that the 2d amendment applies to the states to the extent that it is useful, without believing that the 2d amendment protects much at all.

You could and also not want to take cert in this case.