Author Topic: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban  (Read 787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3589
Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« on: June 02, 2009, 01:50:49 PM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3)
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Andrew M. Harris

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).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew M. Harris at the federal court in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline Cement Man

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2009, 03:43:00 PM »
Notice how the first line references "automatic" weapons - the usual misrepresentation.

Chicago sure is a shining example of how gun control works.  Was it last year that the murder rate there was higher than Iraq war casualties?

Looks like these judges agreed with Sotomayor - the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal govt.

This will be appealed.
CIVES ARMA FERANT - Let the citizens bear arms.
POLITICIANS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS - ONE IN OFFICE AND ONE IN PRISON.... Illinois already does this.

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2009, 04:02:21 PM »
Does this mean that it will be argued Chicago does not come under the federal constitution?
Safety first

Offline Cement Man

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2009, 05:22:44 PM »
Essentially yes, as D.C. being a federal district is the justification for the Heller decision.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1603949,chicago-handgun-ban-060209.article

Quoted part of article:

"But during oral arguments in Chicago last week, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook read to gun-owners’ lawyers a key footnote the Supreme Court put into the Heller decision: “We re-affirm that the second amendment applies only to the federal goverment.”

Because the District of Columbia is administered by the federal government, the 2nd Amendment applies. But the states have greater powers to protect citizens then the federal government, the judges ruled Tuesday."
CIVES ARMA FERANT - Let the citizens bear arms.
POLITICIANS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS - ONE IN OFFICE AND ONE IN PRISON.... Illinois already does this.

Offline Sourdough

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2009, 05:33:14 PM »
They are setting the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the second amendment.  Once the new judge gets in place, we lose.
Where is old Joe when we really need him?  Alaska Independence    Calling Illegal Immigrants "Undocumented Aliens" is like calling Drug Dealers "Unlicensed Pharmacists"
What Is A Veteran?
A 'Veteran' -- whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve -- is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America,' for an amount of 'up to, and including his life.' That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today who no longer understand that fact.

Offline Yankee1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2009, 05:54:12 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is accepted as a God given right.  Therefore cannot be construed as from either the state or the government.
Neither the state or government is allowed to infringe on an unalienable right.
The premise of the 2nd Amendment is that they can do nothing to infringe upon it.  They would like to have everyone believe that they have the right to restrict it.  They do not.  The only thing they could do is declare Marshall Law which would suspend the constitution while in effect.
                                         Yankee1

Online gypsyman

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5043
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2009, 01:16:54 AM »
Anybody know if Illinois has a pre-emption law? I suspect not. Up until a few years ago, Ohio didn't. But when the carry conceal bill went thru, there was one attached, which nulified our local city laws that picked apart our 2nd. amendment rights. Illinois is lot like New York, you have one major city screwing up a perfectly good state.  gypsyman
We keep trying peace, it usually doesn't work!!Remember(12/7/41)(9/11/01) gypsyman

Offline Mikey

  • GBO Supporter
  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2009, 01:39:58 AM »
Truth has already been stated - there is no way the circuit courts can decide this for themselves, it has to go to the Supreme Court. 

And sotomayer - her appointment is not going to change the make up of the court.  She is just filling the seat. 

Offline kitchawan kid

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2009, 01:49:25 AM »
Humor an old New Yorker,but doe's that mean the states are not bound by the Bill Of Rights,they can cancel out freedom of speech,reintroduce slavery etc. if they wish,and the people vote for it?
N.R.A. life member
N.Y.S.R&P
PUTNAM FISH &GAME ASS.
RAMAPOO RIFLE AND REVOLVER

cowboy action,hunting,target-1911's rule

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2009, 02:44:00 AM »
Kitchwan Kid:

Good point! I hope it means that I can stop paying federal income tax now. It took an amendment to get that in place, maybe if residents of the states can stop paying the tax, this sort of precedent may be a good thing.
Safety first

Offline magooch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6684
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2009, 03:31:23 AM »
Like I've said before, the liberals never ever give up.  We are long past due for an amendment that would specify the death penalty to anyone who tries to screw with the Constitution and Bill of Rights by any means other than the amendment process.
Swingem

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2009, 03:54:04 AM »
We need the death penalty for the banking, insurance, and other corporate crimes that take away peoples life saveings through no fault of the saver. eddie
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline lrs

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2009, 08:45:35 AM »
Now your'e talking  >:(
" we are screwed "

Offline GH1

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2009, 11:53:00 AM »
From what I'm able to gather from everything I've read, it seems the Federal government cannot tell states how to govern.  If that's the case the decision could be a good thing if for some reason the federal government tries to enact a nationwide gun control measure.  Personally, I'll gladly give up IL & NY if it means the rest of the country wiull be left alone by the feds.  It's unfortunate for those who live there, but  in the big picture the nation wins.
Then again, I could be off base in my reasoning.
GH1 :)
I owe my life to an organ donor

Offline kitchawan kid

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2009, 12:39:56 PM »
Looks like us new yorkers get the shaft again,you are through us to the wolfs,we can't help it if since Al Capone left Chicago it went down hill.
N.R.A. life member
N.Y.S.R&P
PUTNAM FISH &GAME ASS.
RAMAPOO RIFLE AND REVOLVER

cowboy action,hunting,target-1911's rule

Offline Skunk

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2009, 08:45:55 AM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide“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.”

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

Fairfax, Va. - Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

"The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that 'belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

"It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," Cox concluded. "It's time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country."
Mike

"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" - Frank Loesser

Online Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24306
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2009, 10:54:54 AM »
I have watched, and participated in these discussions for YEARS, on the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, and PRAYER IN SCHOOL.
Several years ago it occurred to me, that the United States government takes itself way to seriously, and that perhaps I also take them a little too seriously. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that with their power they can step on me like a bug unless I bow down to their dictatorial instruction however, will I?

The right to bear arms is not a "state given right" it is "a God given right". I have not gotten a notice from God to date (although I might later) stating that he has "repealed" my right to bear arms. If I do, I will immediately turn my weaponry over to the first Angel I encounter. If the state i.e. the government arranges a meeting for me with God then by all means, I am prepared, and have been for quite some time, so if this does happen, then it was God's will all along. God did in fact create ALL MEN EQUAL, in regard that, if they choose to be free, then they must "endeavor to be so". He also said that we will EAT IF WE WORK, and that if we don't work, we will, and should starve. SO! According to God, eating is not a God given right, but a "GOD GIVEN OPTION". Get my point here? I didn't say this, God did to paraphrase him.

My second point to ponder is: GOD AND PRAYER OUT SCHOOLS by order of the state. This one has been debated much, but the question is: WHOM GAVE THE STATE THE AUTHORITY TO KICK GOD OUT OF THE SCHOOLS "AND HAS GOD COMPLIED"?
In reality only man can DISALLOW God from entering his heart, and the state has no real say in the matter. I find it in a sad sort of way ironically amusing that we as people allow the state to dictate to us our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. At my age, I have come to the conclusion that I would most likely make a very poor SUBJECT, and decided several years ago to live free regardless. They will pass whatever bill they will pass. My dye (or die) is cast.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2009, 11:12:39 AM »
Lets hope it dosen't go that far Dee for our childrens sake .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline CannonKrazy

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Gender: Male
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2009, 12:32:20 PM »
I have watched, and participated in these discussions for YEARS, on the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, and PRAYER IN SCHOOL.
Several years ago it occurred to me, that the United States government takes itself way to seriously, and that perhaps I also take them a little too seriously. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that with their power they can step on me like a bug unless I bow down to their dictatorial instruction however, will I?

The right to bear arms is not a "state given right" it is "a God given right". I have not gotten a notice from God to date (although I might later) stating that he has "repealed" my right to bear arms. If I do, I will immediately turn my weaponry over to the first Angel I encounter. If the state i.e. the government arranges a meeting for me with God then by all means, I am prepared, and have been for quite some time, so if this does happen, then it was God's will all along. God did in fact create ALL MEN EQUAL, in regard that, if they choose to be free, then they must "endeavor to be so". He also said that we will EAT IF WE WORK, and that if we don't work, we will, and should starve. SO! According to God, eating is not a God given right, but a "GOD GIVEN OPTION". Get my point here? I didn't say this, God did to paraphrase him.

My second point to ponder is: GOD AND PRAYER OUT SCHOOLS by order of the state. This one has been debated much, but the question is: WHOM GAVE THE STATE THE AUTHORITY TO KICK GOD OUT OF THE SCHOOLS "AND HAS GOD COMPLIED"?
In reality only man can DISALLOW God from entering his heart, and the state has no real say in the matter. I find it in a sad sort of way ironically amusing that we as people allow the state to dictate to us our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. At my age, I have come to the conclusion that I would most likely make a very poor SUBJECT, and decided several years ago to live free regardless. They will pass whatever bill they will pass. My dye (or die) is cast.


Good stuff. Well pondered.

Offline kevthebassman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2009, 12:42:57 PM »
They are setting the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the second amendment.  Once the new judge gets in place, we lose.

The new judge won't make any difference as far as the 2nd amendment goes.  She's replacing Souter, who was in the dissent on the Heller case.  Souter was a bad justice for us, Sotomayor will continue his tradition.  The result will be no movement left or right on the court.

Offline jtech

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Federal appeals court upholds Chicago handgun ban
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2009, 04:52:35 PM »
  I just can not see the reason anyone would want to take guns from law biding citizens. Criminals do not care that it is ill legal to possess a gun. They intend to break the law in whatever act and the gun is just a chosen tool. Why does the U.S. have nuclear weapons? IMHO to deter. If the entire population of the country were armed TRAINED AND profficent would that not be a deterent to criminals? The fed can have weapons that may never be used, as a deterent, but you and I are not responsible enough to exercise the same right? BS, the goverment CAN NOT protect us from everything. We all have a obligation to our family's,friends and nation to protect ourself.
  It is time, well past time we stand up for our rights and start defending the Constituition. Congressional elections are coming, not soon enough, but we need to send a message, no not send a massage, we need to make a REAL CHANGE that will benefit us all.