Guns, dicta and “sensitive places”
Saturday, June 13th, 2009 5:27 pm | Lyle Denniston
The Supreme Court already has two cases it could use for a new look at the scope of gun rights under the Second Amendment, another case is on the way, and now, perhaps before long, there could be a fourth. The Ninth Circuit Court has received new briefs strongly urging it not to rehear en banc the case of Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. (docket 07-15763), and one brief that is lukewarm on the subject, saying only that further — but only partial — review “would be useful.”
Each of the cases now at the Court or on the way focuses focus singly, or mainly, on whether the Second Amendment individual right to have a gun for self-defense at home restricts gun control laws at the state and local government level, not just federal laws. It is an issue the Justices mentioned but did not decide in their rulng last Term in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the new individual right “to keep and bear arms” at least in some private surroundings.
Already at the Court are petitions in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521), and on the way is a petition challenging a Second Circuit ruling in Maloney v. King — due to be filed by June 26. In those cases, the Seventh and Second Circuits found that, under binding Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws.
The Justices are not expected to act on any of the new cases before they recess for the summer near the end of this month. But all could be up for consideration fairly early in the new Term starting in October.
After a Ninth Circuit panel in May became the first federal appeals court to rule that the individual right applies to states, counties and cities, that Court — at the urging of one of its judges – called for new briefs on whether it should review that decision before the full en banc Court. With the briefs now in, the Court can decide whether to reconsider Nordyke.
The two opposing sides filed their briefs on that question last Monday, and on Thursday, the NRA sought to join in as an amicus. (The briefs can be downloaded from the Ninth Circuit’s website for those with a PACER account, under docket 07-15763, entries 88, 90 and 93.) If that Court votes to leave the panel ruling intact, the next step for this case would be the Supreme Court, since an appeal is likely, either way.
The Nordyke case involves the validity of an Alameda County, Calif., ordinance that bans all guns and ammunition from county property — a law that applies to gun shows on the county fairgrounds as well as gun possession at parks, recreational areas, and historic sites. The Ninth Circuit panel, while finding that the Second Amendment does apply to county laws, upheld the Alameda ordinance.
The Circuit Court panel ruling was attacked, for varying reasons, by all sides, and by the NRA.
Read the rest of this entry »
Saturday, June 13th, 2009 5:27 pm | Lyle Denniston
The Supreme Court already has two cases it could use for a new look at the scope of gun rights under the Second Amendment, another case is on the way, and now, perhaps before long, there could be a fourth. The Ninth Circuit Court has received new briefs strongly urging it not to rehear en banc the case of Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. (docket 07-15763), and one brief that is lukewarm on the subject, saying only that further — but only partial — review “would be useful.”
Each of the cases now at the Court or on the way focuses focus singly, or mainly, on whether the Second Amendment individual right to have a gun for self-defense at home restricts gun control laws at the state and local government level, not just federal laws. It is an issue the Justices mentioned but did not decide in their rulng last Term in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the new individual right “to keep and bear arms” at least in some private surroundings.
Already at the Court are petitions in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521), and on the way is a petition challenging a Second Circuit ruling in Maloney v. King — due to be filed by June 26. In those cases, the Seventh and Second Circuits found that, under binding Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws.
The Justices are not expected to act on any of the new cases before they recess for the summer near the end of this month. But all could be up for consideration fairly early in the new Term starting in October.
After a Ninth Circuit panel in May became the first federal appeals court to rule that the individual right applies to states, counties and cities, that Court — at the urging of one of its judges – called for new briefs on whether it should review that decision before the full en banc Court. With the briefs now in, the Court can decide whether to reconsider Nordyke.
The two opposing sides filed their briefs on that question last Monday, and on Thursday, the NRA sought to join in as an amicus. (The briefs can be downloaded from the Ninth Circuit’s website for those with a PACER account, under docket 07-15763, entries 88, 90 and 93.) If that Court votes to leave the panel ruling intact, the next step for this case would be the Supreme Court, since an appeal is likely, either way.
The Nordyke case involves the validity of an Alameda County, Calif., ordinance that bans all guns and ammunition from county property — a law that applies to gun shows on the county fairgrounds as well as gun possession at parks, recreational areas, and historic sites. The Ninth Circuit panel, while finding that the Second Amendment does apply to county laws, upheld the Alameda ordinance.
The Circuit Court panel ruling was attacked, for varying reasons, by all sides, and by the NRA.
Read the rest of this entry »
