NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling
Friday, June 27, 2008
Following up on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.
"The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words."
The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park.
All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as "incorporation." Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.
"In Washington, D.C. or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," Cox concluded. "These laws all deny that right, and NRA will not rest until they are all struck down."
To view a copy of the San Francisco complaint, please click here.
2
Quirky
Birmingham, AL
October 2005
JUN 27, 2008 10:21 PM
Oh, I can just imagine the board meeting behind this great idea,
"Let's better enable the coloreds to kill each other so they won't vote for Obama!"
silversoul7 said:
I'm afraid I don't see the problem here. Personally, if there's anywhere I'd want to be packing heat, it's in the projects.
The law doesn't affect someone going INTO public housing, just the people who live there.
But that's the point. If I lived in the projects, I'd be damned sure to carry some protection. I consider myself fortunate enough to live in an area where I don't need that protection. There are some neighborhoods where I wouldn't dare go without it.
sigh. i suppose i understand the urge to capitalize on a victory, but i really don't think this is the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money.
to be honest, i think the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money would be encouraging intelligent, useful legislation to combat gun violence--which is to say, to combat illegal firearms.
silversoul7 said:
I'm afraid I don't see the problem here. Personally, if there's anywhere I'd want to be packing heat, it's in the projects.
The law doesn't affect someone going INTO public housing, just the people who live there.
But that's the point. If I lived in the projects, I'd be damned sure to carry some protection. I consider myself fortunate enough to live in an area where I don't need that protection. There are some neighborhoods where I wouldn't dare go without it.
No, I understand that part.
Actually, I'm wondering if public housing would fall under the same rules as other publicly owned properties, like courthouses and such.
motorfirebox said:
sigh. i suppose i understand the urge to capitalize on a victory, but i really don't think this is the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money.
to be honest, i think the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money would be encouraging intelligent, useful legislation to combat gun violence--which is to say, to combat illegal firearms.
But if they cut down the illegal firearms, they no longer have an excuse for needing guns to protect themselves.
motorfirebox said:
sigh. i suppose i understand the urge to capitalize on a victory, but i really don't think this is the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money.
to be honest, i think the best use of gun lobbyists' time and money would be encouraging intelligent, useful legislation to combat gun violence--which is to say, to combat illegal firearms.
A good first step would be to pass laws making it illegal to brandish firearms, assault people with them, kill people with them, and so on. Then we could prosecute criminals for using firearms to commit crimes.
assuming your point is that punishing criminals for breaking the law is the extent to which society can and should protect itself from crime, i disagree. societies can and should improve the standard of living of the whole. sometimes, that means maintaining certain freedoms even though those freedoms can be abused. sometimes, that means regulating certain freedoms to make them harder to abuse. sometimes, it means removing freedoms from select individuals who have proven they cannot be trusted to not abuse them.
This is one of those are you fuckin' kidding me moments. I wonder how many nra members are against the thought of public housing(just wondering).
Read this one Second amendment weekend now that's absurd.http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4047&issue=
South Carolina Legislature Overrides Governor%u2019s Veto of Tax Holiday for Firearm Purchases!
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thanks to your efforts, the South Carolina House and Senate voted this week to override Governor Mark Sanford%u2019s (R) veto of S 1143. This legislation contained a provision to create a %u201Ctax holiday%u201D on the purchase of firearms during the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. Dubbed the %u201CSecond Amendment Recognition Act,%u201D this legislation was introduced by pro-Second Amendment stalwart and recent recipient of the NRA%u2019s Rick Daniel Memorial Defender of Freedom Award, State Representative Mike Pitts (R-14).
With the override vote, the %u201CSecond Amendment Recognition Act%u201D will go into effect July 1 of this year, making the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving this year the first %u201CSecond Amendment Weekend.%u201D
Again, our thanks go out to all who contacted their State Representatives and Senators, as well as to those legislators who voted to override Governor Sanford%u2019s veto.
felony187 said:With the override vote, the "Second Amendment Recognition Act" will go into effect July 1 of this year, making the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving this year the first "Second Amendment Weekend."
Back in North Carolina we always made fun of that little state glommed onto our ass, but I now see that they had the big ideas all along.
felony187 said:With the override vote, the "Second Amendment Recognition Act" will go into effect July 1 of this year, making the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving this year the first "Second Amendment Weekend."
Back in North Carolina we always made fun of that little state glommed onto our ass, but I now see that they had the big ideas all along.
I love the part about it going into effect July 1. Why not, you know, July Fourth or maybe that Friday after Thanksgiving. It's not like they can't advertize" no taxes on guns that weekend "for months in advance. I'd be interested to see what sales are like on red weekend. Red weekend is a copyrighted sales ploy by yours truly!!! So do you guys claim Edwards or do you let SC take'em!!
s5
STAFF
San Francisco, CA
JUN 27, 2008 10:12 PM