Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Chicago's Handgun Ban?

At the invaluable SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston reports that the Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not to hear the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban at its first Conference of the fall term, which occurs on September 29. At issue is whether the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government or whether it also protects an individual right that state and local governments must respect. As Denniston notes, "If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference—that is, on Wed., Sept. 30." Here's why the Court should accept the case and strike down Chicago's handgun ban.

Comments

[R C Dean]

I should probably start drafting my ringing denunciations of the opinion, possibly the majority, possibly a dissent, saying that the 2A does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against the states.

[James Ard]

There's no doubt how the new justice will be ruling. But I don't think the reasoning that prevailed last time will be reversed. If so, that would be some sort of record for changing the mind of the court.

[ChicagoTom]

My prediction:

If they agree to hear the case, they will overturn the
law.

[R C Dean]

I tend to agree with CT and James. However, it was 5-4 the first time around, so fingers crossed.

Also, it is entirely possible that they will de facto uphold the law by declining to hear the case. I believe that four votes are needed to accept a case.

[ChicagoTom]

Also, it is entirely possible that they will de facto uphold the law by declining to hear the case. I believe that four votes are needed to accept a case.

4 votes indeed are needed.

But with conflicting rulings from the appeals, I don't see how they can't accept the case. Even the anti-gun justices will want to accept if only to clarify.

Predicting again:
Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito vote to overturn (or to incorporate the 2nd)

Sotomeyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer vote to uphold.

[wayne]

It is very dispiriting to see the US constitution twisted beyond recognition in the service of an ever expanding federal power.

[James Ard]

OT. Beck had his best ratings yesterday and he's having Rush on tomorrow. Like him or not, he's connecting to the people with his (our) anti-Obama message. It will be really weird if a faggy mormon winds up as our savior after all.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I don't know if even a good ruling will yield much in the way of results, since I imagine Chicago will follow D.C.'s lead and do their best to keep a de facto gun ban in place.

But it would provide some amusement, as the liberal folks would soil themselves. Heck, look at what happened with the tiny handful of guys who showed up at town halls with guns; the libs were shrieking that the country is "under siege" and "on the abyss of darkness", etc. The Depends folks must be doing a hell of a business these days.

[James Ard]

Not the band, but that would definately help around here.

[wayne]

It is interesting to note that although the ninth circuit recognized 2A as an individual right, they still decided that the state (CA) could prohibit weapons at their own discretion: state parks, for example.

Also worth quoting is the Illinois constitution regarding RTKB: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

I don't know what, "subject only to the police power" means, but the rest is pretty clear.

[Grandpa Whithers]

Second Amendment = Open Carry

[Elemenope]

I just look forward to all the amazing Incorporation Doctrine contortions into which each judge will have to bend. That's gonna be hilarious to read.

[James Ard]

I believe the New Orleans circuit gives us a precedent against that police power bullshit, courtacy of Katrina.

[James Ard]

Can anyone recommend a very easy way to spell check comments?

[R C Dean]

Agree, CT.

I will be fascinated to read the opinion stating that a Second Amendment that, per stare decisis guarantees an individual right, somehow isn't incorporated against the states.

I don't know what, "subject only to the police power" means, but the rest is pretty clear.

Subject only to the police power means that the state can regulate or ban guns at will.

Second Amendment = Open Carry

Funny, I don't see the qualifier "as long as they are plainly visible" in my copy of the Second Amendment.

[Karl Hungus]

James Ard:
"Can anyone recommend a very easy way to spell check comments?"

Do you mean to spell-check comments you're planning to post? If it were me, I'd simply type them up in Word, run the spell-check, then copy and paste them here.

I'm still trying to figure out how to italicize . . .

[tomwright]

"Can anyone recommend a very easy way to spell check comments?"

Firefox: right click in the comment box, select "Check Spelling"

I.E.: Heck if I know. I copy into word or outlook and hit f7 and paste the corrected text back in.

[Rhywun]

Can anyone recommend a very easy way to spell check comments?

Safari spell-checks while you type. I think Firefox does too.

[g4m3th30ry]

Yes firefox does

[James Ard]

Thanks Tom. Karl, I think it was JsubD that shared this website: http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp. Italics is one of the first lessons. If I hadn't been drinking, I'd try to href the site.

[wayne]

Subject only to the police power means that the state can regulate or ban guns at will.

That is pretty much what I thought. Of course, that does NOT give Chicago, or Oak Park the right to ban guns. Chicago politicians ignoring their state's constitution is pretty much par for the course.

[The Angry Optimist]

W3 Schools

Proud graduate.

[Craig]

Why would they even consider overturning Chicago's handgun ban, opening up Chicago to the possibility of handgun violence?

Oh wait....

[Captain Obvious]

How can this even be an issue? Isn't the Constitution explicitly clear that these rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[TrickyVic]

I've never understood how only part of the Bill of Rights would apply to states. Wouldn't all amendments within the Bill of Rights be applied equally?

[TrickyVic]

So obvious that SCOTUS can't figure it out.

After Heller they will have a hard time defining the word infringed in some way that will pass the laugh test.

[HeadTater]

Trust me guys, Illinois sucks if you are even remotely libertarian. Downstate isn't too bad. Conservatives are more tolerable even if you do have to deal with the occasional neocon. However, the Chicago liberals just love to spoil everyone's fun.

I find it kinda ironic that we have 2 major gun bills in the works. Downstate is trying to pass a bill allowing concealed carry. Chicago is trying to pass a bill requiring all gun owners to have a $1million liability insurance policy (such a thing does not exist).

If I were the mayor of a major conservative city and the SCOTUS shoots down this, I would try to pass some kind of restriction on the first amendment. Just to prove a point.

[Paul]

It's time to rule on this once and for all. That way I can prepare to own firearms illegally.

[Paul]

I would try to pass some kind of restriction on the first amendment.

Already done and upheld.

[JB]

They damn well better take it, and they damn well better strike down the ban.

[JB]

It's time to rule on this once and for all. That way I can prepare to own firearms illegally.

Who wants to be on a government list anyways? Fuck that shit.

[mediageek]

Who wants to be on a government list anyways? Fuck that shit.

If you aren't on a government list, you're doing something wrong.