Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

[hammAR]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3)
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.

[dleong]

I guess this means the criminals in Chicago will have to do the right thing and turn in their firearms to the police...

[Lastgunshop]

Is Minneapolis or St. Paul nexts?

[John S.]

What's this mean to SF, CA. I thought the NRA won that battle?

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.

[Lastgunshop]

What's this mean to SF, CA. I thought the NRA won that battle?

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.

They may have won the battle, but not the war!

[goalie]

This is good. It doesn't change anything in IL, and wIthout such a ruling, there is no standing to eventually get a USSC decision.

[ijosef]

This is good. It doesn't change anything in IL, and wIthout such a ruling, there is no standing to eventually get a USSC decision.

Yep. The Supreme Court already has precedent to overturn this ruling (i.e. The DC gun ban case), and any true originalist knows that such a ban is patently unconstitutional. You'd have to be the epitome of an activist judge (not to mention an extremely poor jurist in general) not to overturn this case.

[pastorpaul]

we were in chicago visiting my sister on the way back from detroit. heard on the sunday night news that chicago recorded its 4th murder of the day, 10th of the weekend, all shootings. obviously the handgun ban is working.

[nyffman]

I think they're confusing the 1st and 2nd amendments. 1A says "Congress shall make no law.........". 2A says "......... shall not be infringed.". Seems pretty clear to me. States shall not infringe.

[nyffman]

Just got this from NRA:

Minnesota Attorney General Signs Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation
Please Thank Attorney General Lori Swanson!

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Attorney General Swanson was one of the many who agrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right and signed the amicus brief. Please call Attorney General Swanson at (651) 296-3353 and thank her for standing up in support of the Second Amendment.

[Pat]

This is good. It doesn't change anything in IL, and wIthout such a ruling, there is no standing to eventually get a USSC decision.

Yup. We want this to move uo to the SCOTUS as soon as possible. The make up of the court is bound to change.

[Q_Continuum]

Is Minneapolis or St. Paul nexts?

Well, we've got that wonderful state pre-emption...so long as we keep THAT...

[CueBall]

how is it, that there is even an arguement that the 2nd ammendment doesnt apply to states and municipalities when the "highest court in the land" says it does. if this is the case is the appeals court in essence telling us none of the constitution applies to neither states or municipalities as well? talking about opening a can of worms.