Author Topic: Winners of gun case arguing to protect 2nd Amendment  (Read 2650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Confederate Kahanist

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 10765
Winners of gun case arguing to protect 2nd Amendment
« on: August 22, 2010, 02:36:52 PM »

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Greg Tropino Jr. displays a popular semiautomatic pistol manufactured by Springfield Armory at G. A. T. Guns in Dundee, Illinois on June 28, 2010. The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, striking down Chicago's nearly 30-year-old handgun ban but leaving the door open for other gun-control legislation. UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

The team that won the U.S. Supreme Court decision over Chicago's handgun ban – a precedent that affirmed individuals have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms – now is arguing in another court case that such rights need to be protected diligently.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced today it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the long-running Nordyke v. King case in California. The dispute is over a county ban on gun shows in a county facility where they had been held for years.

Read Wayne LaPierre's detailed explanations on "SAFE: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family and your Home"

Foundation officials describe the Nordyke case as a "catalyst" for the McDonald case in Chicago, in which the Supreme Court said, in the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the states legislated in an evenhanded manner."

"This is a very important case," said Alan Gottlieb, the SAF founder and executive vice president, "because it could establish the highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would be subjected."

He said, "While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case, they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be established by the Nordyke case."

The "strict scrutiny" standard is what is applied to disputes involving constitutional rights, and applying it in this case would strengthen virtually all arguments against local limits and restrictions except the ones that meet the very highest standards for need.

The importance of the decision "cannot be underestimated, or understated," Gottlieb said.

"Strict scrutiny is the standard of review to which all constitutionally protected fundamental civil rights must be held," Gottlieb said. "This case has survived for more than a decade, a fact in itself that is remarkable. We believe, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that the Ninth Circuit must act decisively to protect the Second Amendment from willy-nilly regulation by anti-gun public officials."

The case stems from an ordinance adopted in Alameda County, Calif., 10 years ago following a shooting at the county fair in 1998. Russell and Sallie Nordyke had run a gun show on the fairgrounds for years, and while the shooting was unrelated to their show, the county used the incident as a reason to adopt a ban on weapons on county grounds.

Attorney Alan Gura worked on the brief for the appeals court. He is the attorney who successfully argued the McDonald case in Washington.

In his argument, Gura writes, "It is unfathomable that the states are constitutionally limited in their regulation of medical decisions or intimate relations … but are unrestrained in their ability to trample upon the enumerated right to arms designed to enable self-preservation."

The foundation already has brought to court at least four cases over local restrictions that it believes are precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling:

    * The organization has sued the city of Chicago again, this time because it adopted a requirement that gun owners spend time at shooting ranges, then banned shooting ranges. Gottlieb said, "They have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time." The Second Amendment Foundation said the city's regulations are depriving citizens of their rights.

    * It filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleges the state is violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard's permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials now have refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.

    * It sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring residents to have a "good cause" to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to "keep and bear arms." Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.

    * The earliest case to result from the McDonald decision challenged a practice in North Carolina of banning guns during "emergencies." The case claimed state statutes forbidding the carrying of firearms or ammunition when officials declare "states of emergency" are unconstitutional. Further, the plaintiffs said a state law allowing the government to prohibit the sale, purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional. WND reported earlier this year when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a "declared snow emergency."

The high court's 5-4 ruling in the first Chicago case was forecast to bring on such challenges.

It flipped "the burden onto the government and legislatures to show why they need to restrict what the court has already said is an individual right," John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, told WND after the decision.

There is other action on the state level regarding gun rights. Already, eight states have adopted laws that exempt guns made, sold and kept inside the states from any federal gun regulations.

A court case already is being heard over the effort in Montana – the first state to take the step of ordering federal regulators to stay out of the state's business of regulating its citizenry's weapons.

In Wyoming, lawmakers even adopted a $2,000 penalty for federal agents trying to enforce federal regulations against an exempted weapon.
Chad M ~ Your rebel against white guilt