Justices take on potentially landmark gun rights cases.

[david86440]

Which way will this one go?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Setting the stage for a dramatic battle over gun rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted an appeal challenging the ability of state and local governments to enforce strict limits on handguns and other weapons.

The high court returned from its summer recess, meeting in private to consider thousands of pending appeals that have piled up the past three months.

The Second Amendment case from Chicago was the most anticipated of the petitions, and oral arguments will be held sometime early next year. Nine other cases were also accepted for review.

At issue is whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question has remained unanswered for decades, and gives the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs.

he community activist in the Chicago case, Otis McDonald lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He says his work helping improve his community has subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers and other criminals. But his application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

He was among several citizens who appealed the ordinance. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago -- composed of Republican appointees -- ruled in June for the city, concluding the Constitution and past high court precedent was vague on state versus individual fundamental powers.

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook, who has a conservative track record on that bench. Figuring out the limits of an individual right is "for the justices rather than the court of appeals," he said.

[ericire12]

I bet I know how the "wise Latina" will vote.

[twyacht]

The anti's have gotten "smarter" by playing the State's Rights card, vs. the Anti 2nd Amend.

Alan Gura is the lawyer that argued for Heller last year, he is back for this case, next year.

Good precedent for this. Here's a few..

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."
- Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Shuttleworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262

"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
- Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526

Although this is BHO's home state, the cesspool of politics and corruption, so why bother with something as trivial as THE LAW OR RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE..

[PegLeg45]

I bet I know how the "wise Latina" will vote.

The way she is paid...er, um....told.....um, er...........should vote.

[ericire12]

The way she is paid...er, um....told.....um, er...........should vote.

I am sure bHo will be making a phone call to make his wishes be known

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I am sure bHo will be making a phone call to make his wishes be known

That would just get the rest of the Justices PO'd. The three branch's are SUPPOSED to be equal. The SCOTUS does not answer to either the President OR the Congress. Meddling could cause the Justices, who are just as self important as any Senator or President, to rule the other way in spite.

[twyacht]

Wayne LaPierre, feels confident that the Court will not find "selective" restrictions to Constitutional Amendments allowable.

Even a Brady crony, confessed that SCOTUS will uphold the 2nd Amend. for ALL Americans in ALL States.

NBC (state run) Nightly News....

Now if the court were tipped the other way??

[fightingquaker13]

That would just get the rest of the Justices PO'd. The three branch's are SUPPOSED to be equal. The SCOTUS does not answer to either the President OR the Congress. Meddling could cause the Justices, who are just as self important as any Senator or President, to rule the other way in spite.

Its true, she owes him nothing now.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Wayne LaPierre, feels confident that the Court will not find "selective" restrictions to Constitutional Amendments allowable.

Even a Brady crony, confessed that SCOTUS will uphold the 2nd Amend. for ALL Americans in ALL States.

NBC (state run) Nightly News....

Now if the court were tipped the other way??

If they were to rule in keeping with the REST of the Courts rulings on Civil rights they would interpret the Second in the most permissive (liberal ) fashion possible. That would bring into question the validity of ALL restrictive legislation, except POSSIBLY age limits.

[ericire12]

That would just get the rest of the Justices PO'd. The three branch's are SUPPOSED to be equal. The SCOTUS does not answer to either the President OR the Congress. Meddling could cause the Justices, who are just as self important as any Senator or President, to rule the other way in spite.

And that would stop him why?