Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

[sacase]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

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.

Last Updated: June 2, 2009 17:16 EDT

---------------------------

OK, so is the court basically saying that constitutional rights do not apply to states? Or are they saying that the ruling from the DC case does not applly to states and only DC? Basically are they wasting everyones time and money with this?

[Thiebear]

1st amendment

2nd amendment

easy.

Put up felony blocks, make us wait a month, qualify bi-yearly.

But to flat out say you can't have it is just wrong.

Chicago crime is only going to get worse.

[IbleedBnG83]

Good. The second ammendment does not stipulate what type of "arm" you can bear. I have no problem.

And yes, I have a handgun, rifle(s), and shotgun. But I have no problem with this.

[artmonkforHOF]

whenever gun laws come up in the US, people always lean back on the second amendment.

I am just curious to see what Americans think is the reason why the second amendment was included in the first place.

as for the ban in Chicago, it's a great idea. And don't try to tell me that people have hand guns in Chicago for personal safety, because if that's all it was, and nobody used a gun for a crime, then this ban would not be in place or even thought of.

[Predicto]

Interesting three judge panel issued that decision. Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner - two of the most well established and thoughtful conservative judicial thinkers in the nation.

The US Supreme Court is very likely to take this case.

[Oldskool]

Interesting three judge panel issued that decision. Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner - two of the most well established and thoughtful conservative judicial thinkers in the nation.

The US Supreme Court is very likely to take this case.

I was pretty surprised about the ruling as well.

Would you believe that the SCotUS would rule on this case in a similar way as they did in the DC case?

[Thiebear]

whenever gun laws come up in the US, people always lean back on the second amendment.

I am just curious to see what Americans think is the reason why the second amendment was included in the first place.

as for the ban in Chicago, it's a great idea. And don't try to tell me that people have hand guns in Chicago for personal safety, because if that's all it was, and nobody used a gun for a crime, then this ban would not be in place or even thought of.

the reason was clearly spelled out and put in the appropriate place in the Bill.

hint: the people that used a gun for a crime, won't care about this law.

ONLY the people that use it for safety will lose theirs or not gain in the future.

[Larry]

Good. The second ammendment does not stipulate what type of "arm" you can bear.

At the time it was written, it referred to the exact same weaponry that the best-equipped military on the planet was armed with. Their specific intent was that they wanted Joe Citizen to be able to fight against said military on an equal footing.

[Larry]

whenever gun laws come up in the US, people always lean back on the second amendment.

I wonder why?

[Larry]

Interesting three judge panel issued that decision. Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner - two of the most well established and thoughtful conservative judicial thinkers in the nation.

The US Supreme Court is very likely to take this case.

I was pretty surprised about the ruling as well.

Would you believe that the SCotUS would rule on this case in a similar way as they did in the DC case?

Well, the SCotUS, in Heller did explicitly state that their ruling did not consider whether the Second Amendment limited the powers of the States. That they were only ruling in regards to Federal powers. (And that DC is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.)

Several people noted that language at the time. (I'd bet that it was Predicto who pointed it out to all of us unwashed masses.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, the SCotUS, in Heller did explicitly state that their ruling did not consider whether the Second Amendment limited the powers of the States. That they were only ruling in regards to Federal powers. (And that DC is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.)

Several people noted that language at the time. (I'd bet that it was Predicto who pointed it out to all of us unwashed masses.)

Believe this... states' rights and strict construction will suddenly be not as important as they were the day before this case when it get to the SC.

[Larry]

Believe this... states' rights and strict construction will suddenly be not as important as they were the day before this case when it get to the SC.

Not in my mind, they won't.

IMO, the Constitution prohibits states from any legislation which the Constitution forbids to the Federal government. That when the government says "the government may not . . . " then that applies to all governments within the US. (And to all US government actions, world wide.)

[Predicto]

I was pretty surprised about the ruling as well.

Would you believe that the SCotUS would rule on this case in a similar way as they did in the DC case?

I honestly have no idea.

There is very, very little caselaw interpreting the scope and reach of the Second Amendment. In some ways we are heading into uncharted territory. The NRA (on one hand) and gun control advocates (on the other) might like their respective supporters to THINK that the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment is clear, but it really is not.

[HailGreen28]

This "States and Municipalities can ignore the 2nd Amendment" argument is ASSININE and IGNORANT.

Does this mean that Chicago can ban any speech they deem offensive now?

Can they install cameras and tracking devices to monitor all citizens, even in their own homes now?

Can Chicago police convict and jail someone without due process, now?

If Chicago can ignore one part of the Bill of Rights, why not all of them?

[Larry]

Wondering why nobody had a problem when Wyatt Earp banned guns in town.

(Maybe the difference between now and then was that nobody had the guts to sue Wyatt Earp.)

[HailGreen28]

Wondering why nobody had a problem when Wyatt Earp banned guns in town.

(Maybe the difference between now and then was that nobody had the guts to sue Wyatt Earp.)

Because law enforcement officials have traditionally had that kind of power under emergency, unrest, and other situations, nevermind out in the boondocks out West then..... Of course, put more bluntly back then... *BLAM*.

[Taylor4Life]

Interesting.

Even though Sotomayor's case was about nunchucks, she basically made a similar argument as this particular appeals court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090602/pl_cq_politics/politics3132646

The opinion in the case, Maloney v. Cuomo, relied on an 1896 Supreme Court decision for the proposition that "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right," rather than to limitations imposed by a state or local government.

[PokerPacker]

Hooray, constitution need not apply! :party:

[HailGreen28]

Interesting.

Even though Sotomayor's case was about nunchucks, she basically made a similar argument as this particular appeals court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090602/pl_cq_politics/politics3132646

So she thinks that if she gets elected to the Supreme Court, that states and municipalities can ignore whatever she says? After all, technically all the Supreme Court does is interpret the Constitution.

:doh:

edit: elected - confirmed by the Senate, my flub

[Larry]

Interesting.

Even though Sotomayor's case was about nunchucks, she basically made a similar argument as this particular appeals court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090602/pl_cq_politics/politics3132646

I recallo that being mentioned in the Sotomeyer threads. But I just now noticed the date of that previous decision.

Wondering if maybe we're gonna have another of those "Kelo decision moments": Where the USSC upholds a 100-year-old legal precedent, and the right wingers rush to their soapboxes to denounce liberal activist judges for inventing new government powers out of thin air.

[Larry]

So she thinks that if she gets elected to the Supreme Court, that states and municipalities can ignore whatever she says? After all, technically all the Supreme Court does is interpret the Constitution.

:doh:

:secret:People don't get elected to the Supreme Court.

[HailGreen28]

:secret:People don't get elected to the Supreme Court.

Yeah yeah, you know what I mean. CONFIRMED. VOTED IN BY THE SENATE. Whatever. :nana:

Hey, let's throw out all proper procedures, if we're discarding the highest law of the land for our own preferences......

[Larry]

Yeah yeah, you know what I mean. CONFIRMED. VOTED IN BY THE SENATE. Whatever. :nana:

Hey, let's throw out all proper procedures, if we're discarding the highest law of the land for our own preferences......

Any comment on my observation that this USSC decision that says that the Second doesn't apply to the States is over 100 years old?

(BTW, I disagree with that interpretation. IMO, every bit of the Constitution which says "The government shalt not . . . " applies to all governments within the US. I'm just observing that apparently this interpretation that I disagree with does not appear to be a modern invention.)

[HailGreen28]

Any comment on my observation that this USSC decision that says that the Second doesn't apply to the States is over 100 years old?

That if that precedent is followed, then Miranda (which is nothing more than enforcement of the Constitutional rights we've always had), is gone. And Roe V. Wade obviously is moot now.

[Larry]

That if that precedent is followed, then Miranda (which is nothing more than enforcement of the Constitutional rights we've always had), is gone. And Roe V. Wade obviously is moot now.

Do you actually want to learn about the supposed distinctions? (I may be able to take a stab at then, since I remember being taken to school by some other ES poster who knew a lot more than me on the subject.) Or would you rather just vent?

Edit:

Allow me to point out that it was pointed out to me that, in the recent USSC decision about the DC gun ban, that the USSC went to great lengths to explain that they were not overturning this "doesn't apply to the states" ruling. That rather, they ruled that DC's gun ban wasn't covered under this precedent, because DC was federal territory, and not part of any State.