Sunday, May 27th, 2012

SCOTUS to Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case

By
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Maybe now we’ll finally get to find out where the high court’s newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, really stands when it comes to whether the Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens a “right to bear arms.”

That was a contentious issue at her confirmation hearings, with Republican gun enthusiasts warning that she doesn’t support gun ownership as a “fundamental right.” Democrats — and Sotomayor — argued that she’d never had the opportunity to rule on the issue.  In one case, she’d held that the Second Amendment did not forbid states from regulating gun possession, but she’d ruled based on her reading of what Supreme Court precedent required, she said.

Today, the court announced it would take a new gun case, McDonald v. Chicago, that will directly address the issue that’s so far been left undecided: whether the Second Amendment provides a “fundamental right” that states must respect.

The Chicago law at issue in this case bans virtually all handguns. A previous ruling from the Supreme Court, Heller v. District of Columbia, struck down a similar ban but applied only to the federal government’s authority to regulate handguns.

Categories & Tags: Civil Rights| | | | | | | | | | | |

Comments

5 Comments

The_ALBrown
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:45 am

I would like to know how to personally address the US Supreme court members. I have personal life experiences to document to the justices that can be documented with police reports. I am a member of the NRA but my membership in this organization has never been a factor in my understanding or judement of gun ownership.I have lived in Chicago most of my life.
I am 60 years old and I think that my knowledge on this subject would be a welcomed testamnet on this verdict.

Adam
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

What's hillarious is that, in Richard Mobster Daley's fiefdom, only really important people are allowed to have armed protection…like Da Mare, himself. Unlike, say, Oprah Winfrey, mere mortals–who can't afford an armed security detail–aren't allowed to keep a gun for protection. Something along these lines was the basis of the Second Amendment challenge in DC (a security guard, armed on the job, but not allowed a gun to guard HIS life). The elitism of these “you can't have a gun, only I can” people (Daley, Oprah, Obama, the late Ted Kennedey, Sean Penn, Madonna, Rosie O'Donnell) is mind boggling.

Another funny thing–SPRAY PAINT is illegal for 'civilians' to buy in Chicago. Of course, the taggers get get ahold of it anyhow, while Joe Handyman is out of luck when he has to paint his son's Radio Flyer. The parallels between this and gun control should be obvious.

CristianStar
Comment posted May 27, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

I don't know why only important people should be granted to own a gun for self protection.I find my self very important to me and maybe I need gun protection why should the amendment forbidden me that.

__________________________________________________________
Chicago finance

louis vuitton neverfull mm
Comment posted August 21, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

I don't know why only important people should be granted to own a gun for self protection.I find my self very important to me and maybe I need gun protection why should the amendment forbidden me that.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.