Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Penn

Sigaba more than likely can answer this much better than I.

Chef--

Thank you but on such matters I defer to the QP who has me changing my plans for the next several hours and has me sorting through boxes of books when I notice that he might be reading one of my posts.

Yeah, I mean him.

Originally Posted by Aoresteen

Has the NRA decided to apeal the decision?

Yes. The email I recieved today is below.

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-

[SF0]

Originally Posted by Richard

Not if you live on Pirate Island - the vacuum we call the District of Columbia.

Richard's $.02

I stand corrected!

[Sigaba]

The opinion is available here. (The link to the WSJ article does not work. The revised link to the WSJ article has a link to the ruling that does not work.)

The ruling seems* to say:

(a) on GP alone the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is not going to go against established rulings of the Supreme Court even if the established rulings are inconsistent or contradictory or 'fossilized', and
(b) even if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals were inclined to over-ride the Supreme Court, it would not do so in this case because:

(i) the plaintiffs offer a flawed argument (part of the rebuttal is reminiscent of QP Razor's point here, see p. 6),
(ii) a municipality regulating what weapons may or may not be used is an example of federalism, and
(iii) "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon" (p. 9).

In its analysis of the NRA's argument, the opinion is almost cruel in its rhetoric.

In reference to Rubberneck's point, the court is siding with other opinions that Heller is about the authority of the national government while this case and others are about the authority of the states.

In reference to Penn's point, it seems that the decision is saying that states' rights exist as a manifestation of federalism, not in opposition to (versus) federalism.

[Penn]

Interesting reads on the recent past and future present, of the organic arugment of Federalism, as it applies to contemporary issues.

Martha Derthick wrote this short essay in 1996

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/derthick.pdf

“The place of place, for example, is much attenuated in American politics and government. Consider, if nothing else, the fact that two of nine Supreme Court justices, Rehnquist and O’Connor, are from Arizona, and that President Clinton contemplated appointing a third person from that state, Bruce Babbitt, without anyone’s objecting to him on geographic grounds. The time is long gone when high appointive offices—the cabinet, the Court—were allocated to states or regions. Geography has yielded to gender and race.”

Additionally her Book “Keeping the Compound Republic” 2001
Overview below; seems to be on point

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books..._republic.aspx

With reference to the states doing thier own thing.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Handguns will soon be allowed in bars and restaurants in Tennessee under a new law passed by state legislators who voted to override the governor's veto.

The legislation that takes effect July 14 retains an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun, and restaurant owners can still opt to ban weapons from their establishments.

Thirty-seven other states have similar laws.

The state Senate voted 21-9 on Thursday against Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto, a day after the House also voted 69-27 to override.

They overrode critics, including Bredesen, who said it's a bad idea to have guns and alcohol in close proximity.

Democratic Sen. Doug Jackson, the main sponsor of the bill, said state Safety Department records show handgun permit holders in Tennessee are responsible.

Of the roughly 218,000 handgun permit holders in Tennessee, 278 had their permits revoked last year, records show. Since 2005, state records shows nearly 1,200 people have lost their permits.

Revocations are issued for felony convictions, while permits can be suspended for pending criminal charges or for court orders of protection.

Sen. Andy Berke, D-Chattanooga, was the only senator to speak against overriding the veto Thursday.

"I believe that we should follow the governor and rethink what we have done," he said.

The law, which was supported by the National Rifle Association, has been successful in other states, its chief lobbyist said.

"Of those 37 states, not one state has attempted to repeal or amend those statutes because they've been successful," Chris Cox said.

Bredesen spokeswoman Lydia Lenker said after Wednesday's House vote that the Democratic governor expected an override when he vetoed the legislation last week.

Following Thursday's Senate vote, Bredesen, who is a gun owner and hunter, reiterated his stance to reporters.

"I still think I'm right," he said. "I still think that guns in bars is a very bad idea. It's an invitation to a disaster."

___

Read HB0962 at: http://www.capitol.tn.gov

was on yahoo news 6/5/09 url is sorta long.. can provide it anyone wants.

[Richard]

"I still think I'm right," he said. "I still think that guns in bars is a very bad idea. It's an invitation to a disaster."

Sounds as if he's using the same line of reasoning which has made it so difficult to find a pub in Scotland nowadays which will allow you to play darts.

Richard's $.02

[Razor]

Following Thursday's Senate vote, Bredesen, who is a gun owner and hunter, reiterated his stance to reporters.

"I still think I'm right," he said. "I still think that guns in bars is a very bad idea. It's an invitation to a disaster."

Thank God nothing disasterous ever occurs because of the alcohol consumption encouraged and supported in these same bars.

[The Reaper]

Beware the man in the bar who is drinking water.

TR

[Defender968]

The reality is that there have been guns in bars for years, all be it in small numbers by a certain demographic, specifically off duty LEO's. I can speak from personal experience that many of my LEO buddies carried when they went out off duty for a night on the town. The thought process is that they don't want to be out having a good time and run into a "client" unarmed, even if they're consuming alcohol. I don't for a second think that it's new to my generation of LEO.

Does that mean that Joe Q Public should carry in a bar, well that's up for debate in my mind, if I were carrying in a bar where I was consuming alcohol, I would be on my best behavior and wouldn't draw my weapon unless I absolutely had to, and even then the liability would be astronomical, but as I and many of my fellow LOE's have and do say, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Just my .02