Cities' handgun bans may fall, Supreme Court suggests

Cities' handgun bans may fall, Supreme Court suggests — possible victory for gun advocates

By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
March 2, 2010

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities' outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nationwide ownership right fervently sought by gun advocates. But the justices indicated less severe limits could survive, continuing disputes over the "right to keep and bear arms."

Chicago area residents who want handguns for protection in their homes are asking the court to extend its 2008 decision in support of gun rights in Washington, D.C., to state and local laws.

Such a ruling would firmly establish a right that has been the subject of politically charged and often fierce debate for decades. But it also would ensure years of legal challenges to sort out exactly which restrictions may stand and which must fall.

Indeed, the outcome of the Washington lawsuit in 2008 already has spawned hundreds of court challenges, including one in Massachusetts over a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.

Two years ago, the court announced that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws and struck down a ban on handguns and trigger lock requirement for other guns in Washington, a city with unique federal status. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms.

The court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local laws. Still, "states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was among the majority in the 2008 decision.

"Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he asked.

Alan Gura, the lawyer who represents the Chicago challengers, also has filed a new suit against Washington over the city's prohibition on carrying loaded weapons outside the home.

The justices themselves acknowledged that only through future lawsuits would the precise contours of the constitutional gun right be established. "We haven't said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller," Chief Justice John Roberts said, using the name of the Washington resident who challenged the city's ban.

Roberts and the four other justices who made up the majority in the Washington case remain on the court, so it would not be a surprise to see them extend the Second Amendment's reach to the states.

Still, James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing the city of Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in that city and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years, although they appear to be the last two remaining jurisdictions with outright bans, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Feldman ran into difficulty with several justices who formed the majority in 2008 — the ruling's author Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts. Only Thomas asked no questions, as is his custom during argument.

Even those who were not in the 2008 majority appeared to recognize that some extension, or incorporation as it is called, of the Second Amendment is likely. "Would you be happy if we incorporated it and said reasonable regulation is part of the incorporation?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who only joined the court last year.

As in earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the justices suggested they use the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

The court has relied on that same clause — "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" — in cases that established a woman's right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

This is the approach the National Rifle Association favors.

For years, Scalia has complained about the use of the due process clause. But Tuesday he said, "As much as I think it's wrong, even I have acquiesced in it."

Gura urged the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, liberal and conservative legal scholars have said.

But why use that approach, calling for overturning 140 years of law, Scalia said, "unless you're bucking for a place on some law school faculty?"

Gura assured the court he was not in search of a job.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

I'm curious to see how this will turn out...

Me and my Dem uncle had lunch today. He made it a point to tell me that he joined the NRA last week. He's sick and tired of the left wing anti-gun kooks. So, here you have a lifelong Dem joining the NRA. Tells ya something.

I'm just not sure if this will make cities safer, or less safe. Does it allow for the black market to grow, for unstable people to have easier access to a gun?

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm just not sure if this will make cities safer, or less safe. Does it allow for the black market to grow, for unstable people to have easier access to a gun?

The laws are in place to keep unstable people from getting guns. That's a federal law.

The whole thesis here is that the states can't trump the constitution's laws. What i mean is that a state, for instance, can't restrict free speech since it's guaranteed by the constitution. That's the correlation.

I know a couple of unstable people that have guns, my girlfriend's father included. They buy them legally and they buy lots of them too...

BubbleBliss wrote:I know a couple of unstable people that have guns, my girlfriend's father included. They buy them legally and they buy lots of them too...

It's one thing to be unstable by medical definition and one person's opinion. I know where you're coming from but the laws are in place to keep people like Mark David Chapman from getting them..... the background check and waiting period.

But it doesn't do enough, IMO. Background checks don't always do their jobs and there could be no record of a mental or psychological disorder.

Sometimes it's after the fact. That's true. But if you've been diagnosed with mental problems as the near-assassin of Reagan was, you ain't getting a gun. But then, they'll get it on the black market anyways.

That's if you've been diagnosed with it. Extreme anger issues do not really prevent you from buying a gun since you'll most likely not get diagnosed with that.

And you'll have to find somebody in the black market first. That's not always easy, especially for a mentally ill person.

You can take someone with an anger issue and not allow them to buy a gun and they'll carry their anger out in other ways. Happens all the time.

Black market is real easy. I could go to North Minneapolis and get whatever i needed.. Same with East Ft. Worth or South Dallas. Those are the spots (in relation my what/whom i know).

Yeah, but they're more likely to be stopped.... why give the angry man a weapon to make his anger burst more efficient in killing/hurting people?

Yeah, but you might get shot in the process of going to those places.

You can't base things on a person's temper or personality when there's no just cause. We have an equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Section One of that amendment says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is followed by the Equal Protection Clause. Basically, you can't deny a person a right that others have just because you think he might be this or that... in this case, a rager.

So, you can only do something about it after it's been done, you're not trying to prevent anything.

That's how Sept. 11th happened...

You're not getting it. If i have a bad temper and i want to go buy a gun for personal protection (or hunting) and you say that i can't have one, that's not right. You're assuming that i'll go and do something stupid.

Innocent until proven guilty. You can't do what you propose. It's silly. believe it or not, i understand where you're coming from and what you mean... completely. But it's wrong.

If you have a guy that's had restraining orders on him in the past, then you'd have a real good case.

It's about common sense.
The fact that you need more background checks and psychological examination has nothing to do with assuming you're going to do something stupid.

You can't deny me a gun just because i have a hot head. You can't make someone take a psychological exam just because you think he might be a loon. That's like arresting someone because he looks like he might rob a bank.

Those are 2 completely different things.
It's like following a kid who wears all red in a Crip neighborhood. You know something bad might/could happen at any moment.
It's a preventive measure!

That's not even apples and apples.

How is it not?
Preventing a dangerous situation to occur is the same thing in both cases.

Based on an assumption would be a violation of ones civil rights. How? Because you think someone shouldn't have a gun because you think they're a hot head would bring such a huge lawsuit that it would be funny to watch.

Get this.... you can't deny someone a gun (or anything) just because you think he's a hot head. That kind of sh!t just makes my point on liberalism. Liberals know what's good for everyone.

That's what psychiatric/psychological evaluations are for. If somebody is mentally unstable, they can't have a weapon.

So, we just decide who we think is unstable based on one man's opinion? Unreal. I'm glad you aren't in charge of this country.

No, there are tests and diagnosis done by PROFESSIONALS to see when somebody is mentally unstable. Those are the same people who declare prisoners mentally unstable, decide whether you belong in prison or a mental health facility or whether you need anger management or other forms of counseling.

It's the same thing as giving somebody preventive medicine, it's all up to a single professional. Would you rather have a board of non-psychiatrists vote on whether you're mentally stable or not?

Yeah, well people like you are/have been in charge of this and as a result, the US has the highest murder rate among developed nations. And that's a fact.

You can't do what you're doing just because you think it's plausible. You have to have reasonable cause. We have a constitution that sides with me on this.