7th Circuit Court Ruling On Chicago Gun Ban

[Kashmir1008]

Can anyone find the text of the ruling handed down today? I can't get the document to come up.

Basically, it sounds like they decided to let it get kicked back up to SCOTUS since this now creates a conflict in interpretation between the 9th and 7th regarding the 2nd.

This could be it.....one way or another.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but...

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGC9F.pdf

So it looks like the 9th and the 7th have split on their rulings?

 

[ezliving]

link didn't work, but I was able to track down the opinion here:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=opinion

uploaded it.

 

[Norton]

Yeah, that's the one. Looks like some secondary sites have picked it up now.

Yikes....this could be the one for the prize. If it gets kicked to SCOTUS and the 7th ruling is upheld......well, I don't want to think about that.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying this, but it was my understanding that incorporation of 2A was a foregone conclusion if SCOTUS ever took a case on the matter?

 

[ChannelCat]

That looks like the one to me.

Summary here:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...grees-with-sotomayor-on-second-amendment.html

As a result, the ruling in National Rifle Association v. Chicago will likely give Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor some much-needed political cover against criticism of a similar Second Amendment ruling she joined in on the 2nd Circuit earlier this year, Maloney v. Cuomo.

I don't know about all that. All it means is there are way too many left wing pro victim disarmament pinheads in the courts, and the Republicans have had their collective heads in the sands for the last 20 to 30 yerars or so...

 

[mudskipper]

Try to look at the upside here.


By ignoring the finding of the Supreme Court in the Heller case and continuing to ban handguns, Illinois and other states likely to follow their lead (Maryland, Kali, NY, NJ, MA,) will have established precedent that other states will therefore ALSO not have to follow rulings of the court if it's a "local" issue. And what iissue isn't "local", afterall?

So when the Court revisits another gun case in a few years and the Obama-packed bench issues a ruling overturning Heller or greatly restricitng the 2A, then other states will be free to ignore the ruling, just as Illinois is doing now.

So it really won't matter what the "next" ruling will be, it can be ignored in states that don't like it. Court says semiauto rifles are not protected? So what - Montana says they are. So does Texas or Tenn. Or Idaho. Or Utah. Or.....

I was born here in MD, but this isn't the place I was born in anymore. I'll be moving in a few years anyway, and this state can burn to the ground behind me for all I care....

 

[aquaman]

If i'm reading this correctly they are arguing that bill of rights, in this case the 2A does not apply if states wish to ban/restrict them?

 

[Kashmir1008]

Try to look at the upside here.


By ignoring the finding of the Supreme Court in the Heller case and continuing to ban handguns, Illinois and other states likely to follow their lead (Maryland, Kali, NY, NJ, MA,) will have established precedent that other states will therefore ALSO not have to follow rulings of the court if it's a "local" issue. And what iissue isn't "local", afterall?

So when the Court revisits another gun case in a few years and the Obama-packed bench issues a ruling overturning Heller or greatly restricitng the 2A, then other states will be free to ignore the ruling, just as Illinois is doing now.

So it really won't matter what the "next" ruling will be, it can be ignored in states that don't like it. Court says semiauto rifles are not protected? So what - Montana says they are. So does Texas or Tenn. Or Idaho. Or Utah. Or.....

I was born here in MD, but this isn't the place I was born in anymore. I'll be moving in a few years anyway, and this state can burn to the ground behind me for all I care....

So can we assume that the states can just say screw the ammendments altogether. "We don't want citizens in maryland to have free speach - no problem just ignore the constitution. Right to free assembly? No problem just pass some local laws against it."

It doesn't make sense. What's the problem with the States incorporating the 27 ammendments? It's the core of our national government and reflects our values as a nation. The states incorporate the constitution and then build their own laws around the ammendments.

But what do I know

 

[Storm40]

The 2a does not say "the right of the people in certain states"... "the people" means EVERY American citizen, period.

 

[novus collectus]

Try to look at the upside here.


By ignoring the finding of the Supreme Court in the Heller case and continuing to ban handguns, Illinois and other states likely to follow their lead (Maryland, Kali, NY, NJ, MA,) will have established precedent that other states will therefore ALSO not have to follow rulings of the court if it's a "local" issue. And what iissue isn't "local", afterall?

So when the Court revisits another gun case in a few years and the Obama-packed bench issues a ruling overturning Heller or greatly restricitng the 2A, then other states will be free to ignore the ruling, just as Illinois is doing now.

So it really won't matter what the "next" ruling will be, it can be ignored in states that don't like it. Court says semiauto rifles are not protected? So what - Montana says they are. So does Texas or Tenn. Or Idaho. Or Utah. Or.....

I was born here in MD, but this isn't the place I was born in anymore. I'll be moving in a few years anyway, and this state can burn to the ground behind me for all I care....

Believe it or not, MA has a 2A provision in their Constitution. They should theoretically be limitted in what they can ban and such.

 

[Inigoes]

From the NRA:

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."

-NRA-

 

[ezliving]

Mods: I suggest a merge with http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=11368&highlight=Chicago+Gun+Case

 

[joppaj]

Yeah, that's the one. Looks like some secondary sites have picked it up now.

Yikes....this could be the one for the prize. If it gets kicked to SCOTUS and the 7th ruling is upheld......well, I don't want to think about that.

This does sound like it could be the big one...

 

[krucam]

Mods: I suggest a merge with http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=11368&highlight=Chicago+Gun+Case

I concur, but wish to thank ezliving for the great work and input provided in the referenced thread. I was reading it constantly, as a Chicago transplant.

Great work ezliving for the updates you provided leading to this BS decision.

Mark C

 

[ezliving]

I'm just trying to make a contribution. I appreciate the appreciation.

 

[ezliving]

Comments on 7th Circuit decision on Sun discussion forum. http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=201388

 

[MDFF2008]

I just got an email that the NRA has filed for cert to the Supreme Court.

 

[redduck21502]

So can we assume that the states can just say screw the ammendments altogether. "We don't want citizens in maryland to have free speach - no problem just ignore the constitution. Right to free assembly? No problem just pass some local laws against it."

It doesn't make sense. What's the problem with the States incorporating the 27 ammendments? It's the core of our national government and reflects our values as a nation. The states incorporate the constitution and then build their own laws around the ammendments.

But what do I know

But they do limit free speech. It's the same old arguement for "reasonable" restrictions on a Constitutional right. They love to bring out the ol' "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater" garbage. Personally, I think you should be able to. I don't have to go running and screaming out the door. I can sit back and see for myself if there is a fire. I just don't get the whole limited free speech or the limited infringement on the 2nd Amendment.


27 amendments? wow, i guess i quit counting after the 16th amendment.

 

[Kashmir1008]

Comments on 7th Circuit decision on Sun discussion forum. http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=201388

My first thought was "o God should I even bother?" Then I thought sure lets see what's going on. So I get there and almost the first entry I see is some do-do head spouting off statistics about all the people who are killed with guns etc etc so I decide to sign up and post some real stats from the CDC (or at least more real than the Brady bunch stats)

Guess what? - you can't just sign up and post. It takes one to three days for the moderators to "approve" you. So I'm guessing they will do a little research and find out that I'm one of those gun nuts who like to quote all kinds of factual stuff that's going to cause so much grief on their forum and I either:

a) won't be allowed to post or
b) I'll be allowed to post until some liberatard complains that I'm using NRA spin tactics to distort the truth.

Of course once I start bashing on the Sun for misreporting the facts of their own poll I'm definitely getting shut down.

This should be an interesting experiment to watch.

 

[Yoboney]

I don't know if that was three judges or the entire panel but they will ask for reconsideration and request the entire circuit of judges. Then they will appeal to the Supreme Court. I don't think it will make it in until October's term. The new anti gun Sotamayor should be on by then. Then we will have to sweat bullets. Obama may just think he is king and try and undo all the pro gun laws in the nation.