Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun ban case March 2, 2010

[Little-Acorn]

This article is about a different case, not the gun ban. But see the note in the first full paragraph.

Chicago has anti-gun-rights law as bad as DC's laws were (and maybe still are). It is the next forum where these draconian laws are to be challenged. Hopefully the Constitution will emerge victorious.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

DC v. Heller was a step forward, though it has flaws. Now for the next step.

--------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/blog/g/beb6fc74-5510-4656-a7b3-7ee68f249e8f

Upcoming SCOTUS Case: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (First Amendment)

Monday, February 22, 2010
Posted by: Townhall.com Staff at 3:32 PM
Guest post from Ken Klukowski

Getting ready for SCOTUS tomorrow.

Not much to report from the Court today. Decisions came down in two cases, both important but not particularly newsworthy. Court heard argument in employment discrimination case against Chicago. Lawyer for Chicago was Benna Ruth Solomon, who is the counsel of record for Chicago on the Chicago gun ban case McDonald v. Chicago that SCOTUS will hear next Tuesday. (I’ll be attending argument, and will report afterward.)

But tomorrow there will be a big case: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. At issue is a group advocating the use of international law and nonviolent measures to settle conflicts. But under federal law, if they communicate with a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, such discussions can be prosecuted as a felony for giving “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” or “service” to terrorists. The question before the Court is whether that federal law, which is part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, is too vague to be constitutional because it’s unclear how broad the law goes, and could infringe on First Amendment free speech rights.

Should be interesting. I’ll be at oral arguments for it in the morning. Also possible that some decisions in pending cases will come down tomorrow as well.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The verdict is expected in June.

 

[Pandora]

Why June?

 

[Gipper]

Why Chicago's gun law failed
Maureen Martin

Chicago's gun ban ordinance was enacted in 1982 to stem increasing use of firearms in crimes in the city. From the beginning, the ordinance has been an utter failure in accomplishing that goal.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case brought by Chicago residents who want guns for self-defense but are barred by the ordinance from possessing them. Judging by the justices' questioning, a majority appeared to be leaning toward ruling the gun ban -- and Oak Park's similar ordinance -- unconstitutional. That is the right thing to do.

The number of murders committed with guns has soared in Chicago since the ordinance was enacted, as has the share of all murders committed with guns. In 1983, the first year the Chicago ordinance was in effect, 290 murders (39.78 percent of the total) were committed with handguns. That rose to 513 murders (60.21 percent) committed with handguns in 1990. In 2003, 442 murders (73.54 percent) were committed with handguns, and in 2008, 402 handgun murders were committed (78.67 percent).

In the 25 years since Chicago's handgun ban was enacted, the number of murders committed with handguns dropped below 1983 levels in only four years (1984-87). All of these data are from the Chicago Police Department.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100306...08/Why-Chicago-s-gun-law-failed#ixzz0hP3GAwNi

Gun bans are a horrible failure where ever they are dictated. How many law abiding honest people have died because they were unable to defend themselves? Why is liberalism so intolerant, always a failure, and completely unconstitutional? Yet, fools believe.