Top court to decide how far gun rights extend...

[spin]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own firearms trumps state and local laws, reviving the legal battle over gun rights in America.

The high court said on Wednesday it agreed to decide the reach of its landmark ruling last year that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to own guns and use them for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home.

***snip***

The court last year prohibited the federal government from imposing certain restrictions, but it left unclear whether the right also applied to state and local gun control laws.

The Supreme Court said in a brief order it would settle that question by ruling in a dispute over a strict gun control law in Chicago.

***snip***

Gun control advocates said the Supreme Court's decision was expected. "The Chicago case is unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the court rules," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58T44S20090930

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Sometimes I love the brady/joyce gun grabber types - lol

"Gun control advocates said the Supreme Court's decision was expected. 'The Chicago case is unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the court rules,' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

Every time a courtroom floor has the honor of being mopped by these dimwits, they use some permutation of the line, "it was expected and doesn't matter".

[TPaine7]

4. This is even worse:

He said the court was unlikely to change the crucial holding in last year's ruling that reasonable gun laws are likely to be upheld and that the constitutional right was narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense.

This seems to be intentional lying--the Court did not limit the right "to guns in the home for self-defense"; the Court limited the holding. There is a universe of difference between the two.

Of course I note that there is no direct quote to substantiate this position, so it may be the media's garbling of what he said. On the other hand, experience has taught me to expect just such lies from Brady...

[spin]

2. Paul Helmke has been disappointed a lot in the last few years. (n/t)

[billh58]

3. With a

neoconservative, Republican-stacked, right-wing, 5-4 majority, there should be no surprises.

[TPaine7]

5. There could be one significant surprise

The ruling for the trampled upon and despised Fourteenth Amendment could be much higher than 5-4. The intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment was crystal clear. They wanted the freed slaves to be able to bear arms for their personal defense, and they wanted their right to do so under the Second Amendment protected against the states. They said so. Repeatedly. The debates were published throughout the United States.

It is impossible for a literate, honest and informed person to take any other position on this issue. It is at least possible that more than 5 justices are literate, honest and informed on this issue--or will be after they read the briefs.

[DonP]

7. Yeah, let's ignore that Neocon Ginsburg too...

...and the other 4 justices that agreed in their two dissents that RKBA remains an individual right.

The dissents were based on other issues.

But you stay nice, warm and happy in your fantasy world with your GOP buddies Helmke, Brady and friends where the Heller decision never happened ... and if it did it doesn't really matter anyway.

Now Daley is about to have his ass handed to him, along with a bill for several million $ more in legal fees by Alan Gura I'm guessin', just like DC and SFO. Of course it will all come out of tax money so what the hell does he care.

[TheWraith]

8. The same "right wing majority" that overturned laws against gay sex nationwide?

The same "right wing majority" that struck down the Bush admin's military commissions plan?

Yeah, it's really all as simple as that. :eyes:

[Jackson1999]

6. Why this is huge

If they incorporate, they could rule that 2A is a fundamental right. That means courts wouls have to use "strict scrutiny" in looking at local requirements. Policies designed to just discourage gun ownership would not fly.

Mr. Bloomberg, meet Mr. Gura.

[Israfel4]

9. Any predictions anyone???

I say 7-2 in FAVOR for striking down Chicago's gun ban as being UNconstitutional.

[spin]

10. I would guess 6-3 to strike down Chicago's ban...

but would still allow states to decide on laws such as concealed or open carry.

[SlipperySlope]

11. 5-4 or 5-3

I bet you five dollars it comes down 5-4 or 5-3.

And no, there isn't a mistake in my math.