Scalia, Stevens and Sotomayor (and rest of Supreme Court) to grapple with another handgun ban

The news today that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns has invigorated gun-rights activists across the country.

Groups like the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation say they hope the high court's decision to consider what's known as the incorporation issue in McDonald vs. Chicago could imperil state and local gun-control ordinances, which they say violate the "right to keep and bear arms" guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

For a long time, the Supreme Court avoided hearing cases having to do with that controversial amendment. That changed last year, when the court recognized for the first time that an individual has a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.

In that case, Columbia vs. Heller, the court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

The decision did not set a precedent for the rest of the nation, because D.C. is a federal enclave, not a state or city. But it relates in some significant ways to the new Chicago case. For one, the plaintiffs' legal team in McDonald vs. Chicago will be headed by Alan Gura, the same lawyer who successfully argued the challenge to D.C.’s gun ban.

Columbia vs. Heller came about...

...when Robert A. Levy, a lawyer affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute, decided to finance a challenge to the district's restrictive handgun law. He recruited several plaintiffs, including a private security guard named Dick Heller, to file a lawsuit claiming that the law infringed on their constitutionally protected rights to keep handguns at home. 

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Heller and said that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" protects "the inherent right of self-defense."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, said that the 2nd Amendment is not limited to state militias, as those in favor of restrictive gun laws often argue.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion that the court's decision opened gun-control measures around the country to attacks. "I fear that the district's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," he wrote.

For more on the new 2nd Amendment case, watch latimes.com for stories by our Supreme Court expert, David G. Savage. Or, for a more partisan view, check out Chicago Gun Case, a website run by the case's plaintiffs and updated regularly.

-- Kate Linthicum

Every American has the right to Twitter updates about every new Ticket item. Click here to register. Or follow @latimestot

Photo: A Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. Credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Linda]

Even if one is personally afraid of handguns, it's pretty difficult to make the case that Chicago's restrictions have yielded a safer city. If the law is overturned, it will be interesting to see whether or not it has any effect on safety in that city.

[Jkeyes]

Here we go again. The anti's want tear up the Constitution.

[don]

"For more on the new 2nd Amendment case, watch latimes.com for stories by our Supreme Court expert, David G. Savage. Or, for a more partisan view, check out Chicago Gun Case, a website run by the case's plaintiffs and updated regularly." And the Los Angeles Times is not as partisan as the plaintiffs who, in fact, were on the winning side in Columbia Vs. Heller? Surely you jest?

[Carl_W_Goss]

The NRA heartily supports the DC handgun decision. And, they want it to apply to the nation as a whole;-- in other words the NRA wants to establish a 2nd Amendment right, similar to that of the lst Amendment, with its guarantees of free speech, and freedom or religion.

But, the NRA ought to be careful what is wishes for. The establishment of a personal right to have a handgun in a home, will have the effect of putting the federal courts into the business of regulating what exactly a handgun is, among other things.

For example, what caliber of bullet should be allowed for home defense? What sort of clip size should be allowed? Are machine pistols to be allowed under the 2nd Amendment? Can I have a fully-automatic machine pistol in my house for self-defense?

Do I have a federal constitutional right to keep a shotgun in my house? How about an assault weapon? Do I have a constitutional right to keep a fully-automatic weapon of any kind in the house? How about a grenade-launcher to spice things up?

As with any federal constitutional right, the federal courts will be involved in handling gun disputes, which (knowing the NRA) are probably going to be endless. The NRA always wanted the federal courts to be involved in the regulation of gun-powder technology, but will things always go their way?

Federal judges are not elected and the NRA won't be able to put pressure on the courts to rule one way or the other on any gun issue, except through legal pleadings.

While it's unlikely that 2nd Amendment clause, however it is interpreted, will have much effect on day-to-day gun control, the courts will be actively involved in interpretation of local statutes. And courts can go any which way on an issue, especially when it comes to a new precedent.

So, my advice to the NRA and the gun-nuts, back off on this issue, it could come back to hurt you.

[Joel]

Why is it that people believe more gun laws will have any impact on a criminal element that delights in ignoring the laws already in-place? The only people safer as a result of stronger gun control laws are the criminals who can then rest assured their potential prey will be unarmed.

[LKF]

Hand wringing liberals believe it's OK to take away selective sections of the Bill of Rights and preserve others. Why not just repeal the Constitution for liberals and let them be subject to the whims of the Nanny State? A parallel form of Laws. If you vote democrat, you have no rights. If you vote Republican, the Government has no right to interfere with your freedoms, especially the 2nd Amendment.

[archangel]

Nice photo of a stainless Smith & Wesson although my preference is not for shiny Here-I-Am-Shoot-Me pistols that reveal your position to the enemy. Likewise for all the useless pistol do-dads and flashlight acessories.
Now, it appears that LAT's got the cartridges above the barrel right, but why the 9mm and .45 cal auto cartridges which that pistol cannot fire?
Is that for some liberalista social behavior modification fear guns effect? Maybe next time you can include a granade or RPG too. After all, they are the weapons of choice of most liberalista socialist progressive 'movements' and very dramatic even in pictures.