Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

"The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban."

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010 ... un-rights/

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
June 28, 2010 - 10:07 AM | by: Lee Ross

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

So I guess we will see legislation similar to what DC did in saying sure you can own firearms. You just have to jump through these 1,000 hoops, and oh by the way, you still can't actually have the firearm assembled even when you are in your own home.

More updates on FOXNews site:

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010 ... un-rights/

...and soon to be updated SCOTUS blog

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/debat ... v-chicago/

Stand by for hysterical nonsense from Mayor-for-life Daley in 3...2...1...

The same inept Chicago police department that months ago contemplated calling in the National Guard to help enforce order in the city, is now attempting to hatch a plan to make legally obtaining a handgun as difficult as possible. They need only to look to our Nation's Capitol for ideas.

That's the Chicago way.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/244 ... 10.article

Yep, and the entire state of California is trying to go the same way, bit by bit, with SchwarzeTRAITOR's help.

Mayor Daley, I've got a question for you. Will you do as Mr. McDonald suggested and spend a night in his home, without your contingent of armed bodyguards, since Chicago is so "safe" as to need your onerous ideas about armed law-abiders?

CowboyT wrote:Mayor Daley, I've got a question for you. Will you do as Mr. McDonald suggested and spend a night in his home, without your contingent of armed bodyguards, since Chicago is so "safe" as to need your onerous ideas about armed law-abiders?

I think I saw that movie...

I predict that we will see an increase in shootings in the good city of Chicago followed by a sharp dip in crime...the increase in shootings you ask...yes, bad guys that did not get the memo...

...and now it begins.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/ch ... trictions/

Chicago Approves Tough New Handgun Restrictions

CHICAGO -- The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:
-- Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

-- Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

-- Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.-- Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city -- which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago -- would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Though Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not specifically strike down Chicago's handgun ban, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

Mayor Richard Daley moved quickly to get a new ordinance in place and has indicated that he expects legal challenges to the new restrictions.

So wait, if you can't have handguns on your porch or in your yard. How do you get the darn thing inside? How do you get it out again to go to the range?

The vote shows just how corrupt that city/state is,,,Daley has his tentacles everywhere. I would love to see the lawsuits go for cash awards that that SOB would have to pay from his own pocket. Seeing him bitch slapped would do us all good.Gun rights supporters have their work cut out for them even more now,If they lay down and take that crap the antis will say they have won and will attempt to apply that Draconian formula in other cities and localities... Lot of work to do yet!!!

totes6 wrote:So wait, if you can't have handguns on your porch or in your yard. How do you get the darn thing inside? How do you get it out again to go to the range?

Good question, and the Chicago city council is currently working on a solution. Here's the rough draft as it stands now:

1. Your handgun must be unloaded, then disassembled and placed in locked container.
2. That locked container must be placed in a cage with an angry badger or wolverine.
3. But first, the above mentioned angry animal must have completed at least eight hours of firearms training. Or sixteen hours of anger management classes. Or both, if the animal is a registered voter
4. Before leaving your house, you must notify the DPS, DHS, ATF, FBI, CIA, NIS, IRS, EPA, DMV, DHS, HUD, DOE, HHS, SSA, FTC, FDA, EEOC, TSA and OSHA.
5. Lock the gun, cage and 3,000 page instruction manual in the trunk until you arrive at your destination.
6. When you arrive at your destination, open the cage and remove the locked container.
7. Summon the proper medical personnel to bandage any survivors.

You may now proceed to the government approved practice range of your choice. Be sure to look both ways before crossing the street.

Thank you.

It's a stretch but hopefully some of that tripe gets squashed in court..Things like Requiring a training course in order to buy/own a gun is not in the Constitution, Several of Dalys nonsense rules smell of infringment big time to me..Let's hope the gun rights people in Illinois step up their efforts to stop this kind of abuse by a crooked and corrupt political machine that needs to be dismantled immediately.

OakRidgeStars wrote:-- Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

I love this one. The feds - and probably the state - already do this. But making it a city crime, why, that'll do the trick!

-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Since this is a new registry, I think a case can be made it's illegal under 18 USC 926(a) (emphasis added):

18 USC 926(a) wrote:No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.