Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

[Hazcat]

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”

Second Amendment

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”

Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.

Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies.

Following Precedent

Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove.

That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states.

An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote.

The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments.

Applicable Law

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.

Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property.

Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome.

“This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.

“This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.

The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide

[philw]

ok 

can you please translate all of that to Australian for me 


so I though after Heller  it was all done and dusted,   I am guessing that is not the case

[Hazcat]

Phil,

In actuality the Heller case only covered DC.  The law has not been 'incorporated' by the 14th Amandment (don't get me started on that!) so challenges outside of DC still go through the regular court system.

In this case the 7th Circus court of appeals (Federal) has ruled that there is no self defense right.  It will now go to the Supreme Court.

[philw]

Thanks Mate

well that all seems to hard,   what ever happened to common sense

Phil,

In actuality the Heller case only covered DC.  The law has not been 'incorporated' by the 14th Amandment (don't get me started on that!) so challenges outside of DC still go through the regular court system.

In this case the 9th Circus court of appeals (Federal) has ruled that there is no self defense right.  It will now go to the Supreme Court.

hmmm   sounds like here hehe    remember the Police  will  save you    

[fightingquaker13]

This is the big one and it will probably hit the SCOTUS. The question is simple, is the 2A a "fundamental" right and thus incorporated, or not, and therefore left to the several states? This is Con Law 101 with all the money on the table, all in, win or die. I am glad Heller established the 2A as an individual right, as it keeps the feds from doing anything outrageous (annoying yes, outrageous no) but if it doesn't protect us from state action it might as well be a dead letter in too many states. We best hope the local case is good and that Alito and Thomas get over their deference to states rights on this as well as hoping Ginsberg remembers her disdain for them. This will be the big one,
FQ13 

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

I recognized one of the judges names - a Chicago Dem lifer who obviously got his reward in the past with this appointment to the 7th Circuit. I don't know about the other 2 though. And Schader, the mope who ruled in December had reached his Peter Point a long time ago and this is as far as he made it.

Chicago politics, wait for the dirty tricks between now and when this, and the 9th and 2nd Circuit Courts' rulings go to the SCOTUS.

[Erusen]

I used to think 7 was a lucky number.  Proved wrong yet again.

[MikeBjerum]

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

Someone please explain to me what good our Constitution and Bill of Rights are if they apply to the nation as a whole, but not to individual states and municipalities?  After all, what is our nation if it were not for municipalities and states?  Isn't our actual name United Statesof America?  If you take out the rights of individuals in states don't you take away the rights of citizens of this nation except those not living in a state?  Does this mean that if we want to enjoy our rights we all need to move to DC, because it is not a state?

Please tell me what these justices are ingesting ... I want some!

[shooter32]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[fightingquaker13]

Someone please explain to me what good our Constitution and Bill of Rights are if they apply to the nation as a whole, but not to individual states and municipalities?  After all, what is our nation if it were not for municipalities and states?  Isn't our actual name United Statesof America?  If you take out the rights of individuals in states don't you take away the rights of citizens of this nation except those not living in a state?  Does this mean that if we want to enjoy our rights we all need to move to DC, because it is not a state?

Please tell me what these justices are ingesting ... I want some!

Actually, its a basic history lesson. The anti-federalists feared the US constitution as they thought it would subvert state constitutions. This was one of the main things that made ratification hard. The Court was refered to as "the most dangerous branch" of the US government in what I think was anti-federalist 87. The reason for this was a fear that it could nullify state consttutions if they conflicted with federal law. This fear was put to rest in the 1805 case of Baron v Baltimore. Here, Baron owned a pier. The city of Baltimore dredged a shippig channel that piled up silt and made it worthless. He sued, demanding compensation under the 5As takings clause. He was rebuffed by the Court uder the grounds that that the bill of rights applied to the feds, not the states. Over the years this has changed in practice but not in principle. Baron is still good law. The test the Court uses is which part of the Bill of Rights are "fundamental" rights and so therefore can overide state law. They do this as an adunct of the 14th ammendment (ironically Taney did it before this in Dredd Scott when he reversed Baron and said 5A rights trumped state emancipation laws but the court has never used that as precedent). It all stems from which part of the Bill of Rights is deemed congruent with 14A which gives the feds the right to intervene in state law. Hope that helps.
FQ13