Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Man Tries to Order Priciest Starbucks Drink Ever Total cost: $23.60 »

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Local Gun Laws

Challenge to Chicago handgun ban could neuter local gun control measures

By Harry Kimball,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 30, 2009 11:40 AM CDT

(Newser) – The Supreme Court will take up a case that could radically alter legal precedent regarding gun ownership and Second Amendment rights. The case is an appeal brought by Chicago-area gun owners who challenged the city’s ban on handguns. The high court overturned such a ban last year in Washington, DC, but didn't make clear whether it applied to cities and states, notes the Los Angeles Times. The ruling, due next summer, could lead to challenges of gun-control measures across the nation.

A handgun.
A handgun.   (AP Photo)
The steps of the US Supreme Court building.
The steps of the US Supreme Court building.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial. - Los Angeles Times

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 53 comments
ChickenChopper
Oct 3, 2009 8:35 AM CDT
sure jam...'libs' never have that stuff happen... and @anonymous reader...'law-abiding' citizens dont need AR-15's, etc... and back at jam...a lot easier for a criminal to get a gun if he can buy legal ones off 'law-abiding' citizens...happens every day..oh yeah, so does stealing them...
WallyEFunk
Oct 1, 2009 12:33 PM CDT
GOOD POINT osu, Its bad about making such changes possible. being able to restrict one bill, then others could follow as well. A slippery slope once started,A not easily solved problem then.
H Kimball
Oct 1, 2009 5:32 AM CDT
Sorry to break the fourth wall, as it were, but I have to weigh in. I think it's very important to note that when we talk about the 1st or 2nd Amendment--or the 14th, which could play a big a part in this case, and is discussed in the source article, which you all should read if you haven't--we should remember what the thing we're talking about is called. Lost you? It's "amendment." The Bill of Rights is composed entirely of amendments, some of which have stood since the Constitution was ratified, and some, well, not so much. My personal opinion is that, since our nation no longer tolerates militias, it need not afford individuals the right to bear the arms necessary to form those militias. I'm not anti-gun--I just don't think gun owners should use a 200-year-old document as a crutch. What's wrong with making the point in a modern context? And for serious, read up on the fascinating constitutional questions in play.

More Newser Stories

Chicago Rushes New Gun Ban Into Place

Wisconsin DA: Go Ahead, Pack a Concealed Weapon

Supreme Court Extends Handgun Rights Nationwide

DC Still Defying Court on Guns

Gun Control Is Dead


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne