|
|
June 8th, 2010
 The NSSF reports that newly released documents show Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was involved in forming Clinton Administration policy on gun control, including, apparently, proposing that President Clinton issue an Executive Order to prohibit firearm sales without prior police certification/approval. The Washington Post reports that Kagan helped formulate gun control measures during the three years she served as a domestic policy advisor for Clinton.
After analyzing documents turned over by the Clinton Library, the Washington Post revealed: “Kagan was immersed in initiatives on gun control. In deliberations about how the Clinton administration should respond to a Supreme Court ruling that the federal government could not force local or state police to conduct background checks on gun purchasers, she appears to support such checks.” One document revealed that Elena had suggested that Clinton might issue an Executive Order banning gun sales without prior police approval. Based on these documents, it appears Kagan showed a strong anti-Second-Amendment bias when she worked in the White House, advising President Clinton.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings this summer, NSSF looks forward to a full exploration of Kagan’s involvement in gun-control issues during the Clinton administration, the most anti-gun administration in history.
Share the post "Kagan Involved in Anti-Gun Policy-Making as Clinton Advisor"
April 20th, 2010
 The United States Supreme Court today struck down a federal law banning depictions of “animal cruelty” on the basis that the law violated the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment. In its 8-1 ruling in United States v. Stevens, the High Court upheld a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision voiding the conviction of Robert Stevens for violating 18 U.S.C. 48, which prohibits depiction of animal cruelty.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, who declared that that the law was overbroad, and could potentially be used to ban TV shows about hunting, as well as educational videos. At issue was a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals. The case arose over the conviction of Robert Stevens, who received a three-year prison sentence from a Western Pennsylvania court for selling videos that included scenes of hunting with dogs. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction on constitutional grounds, accepting Stevens’ argument that his videos were protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit’s decision. Had the Third Circuit’s decision been overturned, all images of legal hunting and fishing could have been deemed illegal under the law.
The Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA) took a lead role in bringing journalists and outdoor industry organizations together in support of the First Amendment argument presented before the Court by Robert Stevens’ attorney Patricia Millett. “POMA is grateful to the Court for this important decision,” said Laurie Lee Dovey, POMA executive director. “The First Amendment rights of traditional outdoor sports journalists, those who cover legal hunting and fishing and promote the enjoyment of these American heritage sports, are protected. The impact of this decision on POMA members, all journalists, and the outdoor industry can not be overstated.” The ruling in U.S. v. Stevens was a setback for animal rights groups and the Obama Adminstration’s lawyers, who asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Third Circuit and send Robert Stevens to prison.
CLICK HERE for full text of Decision in U.S. v. Stevens
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Hunting Videos Are Protected by First Amendment"
March 3rd, 2010
Those interested in the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case can now read the complete transcript of the Oral Arguments conducted yesterday before the U.S. Supreme Court. We added the link to the transcript late in the day on Tuesday, so you might have missed it. (FYI, the written opinion in this case is not expected until June, 2010).
CLICK HERE for transcript of Oral Argument
(PDF file, 77 pages, 342kb).
To learn more about the plaintiffs in this case, click the link below to read a profile in the Chicago Magazine website. The ‘name’ plaintiff is Otis McDonald, a 76-year old retired maintenance engineer (and grandfather). The son of sharecroppers, McDonald grew up in Louisiana, then moved to Chicago at age 17. Now he simply wants the right to have a handgun to defend himself in his home.
Chicago Magazine Story on McDonald v. Chicago Plaintiffs.
Share the post "Transcript of Supreme Court Argument is Available"
March 2nd, 2010
 Lyle Denniston, reporter for the Scotus (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog, attended the oral argument in McDonald v. Chicago (Docket 08-1521) this morning. Analyzing the comments and questions of the Justices, Denniston concluded that the High Court is very likely to extend the Second Amendment to state and municipal actions, on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Justices were skeptical of the argument that “incorporation” of the Second Amendment was likewise mandated by the “privileges and immunities” section of the 14th Amendment.
CLICK HERE for transcript of Oral Argument
(PDF file, 77 pages, 342kb).
Denniston writes: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.”
During the course of the oral argument, the Justices disagreed as to the scope of the Second Amendment — whether it should be limited to a “core right” of self-defense or whether it could be applied much more broadly in future cases. The Scotus Blog explained: “The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations. The eagerly awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. found all members of the Court actively involved except the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas. And, while no one said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment had already been decided before the argument had even begun, the clear impression was that the Court majority was at least sentimentally in favor of that, with only the dimensions of the expansion to be worked out in this case and in a strong of likely precedents coming as time went on.”
We recommend that those interested in Second Amendment issues read the full Scotus Blog Entry, which includes detailed explanations of the key arguments, and analyses of how individual justices stand on the question of how the Second Amendment should be applied to the States — i.e. whether broadly or narrowly.
CLICK HERE to read SCOTUS BLOG re McDonald v. Chicago.
Share the post "After the Argument — Supreme Court Appears to Favor Extension of Second Amendment"
March 2nd, 2010
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a major Second Amendment case that will determine whether cities and states must honor the Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, set forth in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It will be argued that the protections of the Second Amendment should extend to state and local government activity, based on the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The key words from the 14th Amendment are “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . ”
You can consider McDonald v. City of Chicago as the sequel to the 2008 landmark case — the District of Columbia v. Heller — in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is an “individual” right to keep and bear arms. The Court’s decision, however, applied only to areas regulated by the federal government, such as the District of Columbia. As a result the Heller decision inspired further legal attempts to clarify how the right to keep and bear arms applies to citizens nationwide.
After Heller, many lawsuits were filed to overturn municipal and state laws that prevented individuals from owning handguns. In Chicago, several residents brought suit challenging the city’s long-standing gun ban. These residents, among them 76-year-old Otis McDonald, wanted a handgun to protect themselves and their families. McDonald, interviewed by ABC News, lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood and wants a gun to defend himself in his home: “If I’ve got a gun, and if others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that’s one thing that police would have to worry about less.”
How broadly or narrowly the Second Amendment will be applied to state regulations is the key question in today’s hearing in McDonald v Chicago. Today, one hour has been set for oral arguments. Attorney Alan Gura, who won the Heller case, will argue for the petitioners Otis McDonald, et al. Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the NRA, which is also a party to the case. Chicago’s defense will take up the remainder of the time.
Final Decision is Months Away
Legal experts will attempt to predict how McDonald v. Chicago will be decided, based on the questions/comments of the Justices during oral argument. However, we will have to wait many months before the Supreme Court’s actual written ruling. In a case of this significance, we can expect a lengthy written opinion (with dissents), that may not be issued until summer 2010.
Report and Photo Courtesy NSSF
Share the post "High Court Hears "McDonald v. Chicago" Today"
February 11th, 2010
Michael Bane, producer and host of the popular DownRange TV show on the Outdoor Channel, also creates a short video “podcast” each week. Michael’s weekly podcasts cover a variety of topics — product intros, major competitions, shooting tips, and gun industry news. This week (8 min, 30 sec into the video), Michael comments on the upcoming Supreme Court hearing in McDonald v. Chicago. That case will determine whether the landmark Second Amendment ruling in D.C. v. Heller shall be extended to state and local government actions. Bane also spotlights the FBI’s new 40sw AR15 carbines (from Rock River Arms) and the re-introduction of the classic Merwin-Hulbert revolver, now marketed as a compact CCW weapon. Notable Merwin-Hulbert design features included interchangeable barrels and auto-ejection of spent cartridges (when bbl assembly was unlocked).
Details of Merwin Hulbert Revolver Design (NRA YouTube Video)
Share the post "Supreme Court Case + Gun News on DownRange TV Podcast"
October 2nd, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to hear McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521), a case challenging gun control laws in the city of Chicago. When it rules on this case, the High Court can be expected to refine and expand its landmark ruling in DC v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time ever, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to “keep and bear arms”.
The key issue in McDonald v. Chicago is whether state, county, and city goverment actions can be challenged on the basis of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights have already been held to govern state and local laws, but this would be the first time the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether the Second Amendment applies to “state action” through the Due Process or Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal analysts predict that the U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down (or modify) Chicago’s restrictive gun laws, holding that the Second Amendment applies to state and municipal laws under the Incorporation Doctine.
In the Newsweek.com Blog, Howard Fineman writes: “Now the court will take up the appeal of a case of a handgun ban in Chicago to clear things up [following DC v. Heller]. Expect another sweeping smackdown…. What that means in the case of guns is a full-scale legal assault on, and sweeping away of, many if not most existing regulations on their sale and possession of handguns, pistols, and rifles, at least initially. If the court decrees the use of the standard method of assessing limits on fundamental rights, it will require states and localities to show a ‘compelling state interest’ for the regulation they seek, and a narrowly, carefully-tailored statute to address it. It’s what the lawyers call ‘strict scrutiny’─and it will kill off laws by the score, at least at first.”
We think that Fineman exaggerates the potential effect of a pro-gun ruling in the McDonald v. Chicago case, but we certainly hope that a ‘strict scrutiny’ standard is established. That the High Court will impose ‘strict scrutiny’ is by no means certain, however.
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court to Review Chicago Gun Case"
March 10th, 2009
Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear New York City’s request to continue a lawsuit that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Glock GmbH.
“We are very pleased by today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to not review lower appellate court rulings that dismissed cases based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “These baseless lawsuits against responsible, law-abiding companies are the type that Congress intended to prevent by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
The city’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2000 by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress in 2005, a federal judge threw out the New York lawsuit. Then in April of 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying the new law was constitutional. New York City’s final recourse was to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on March 9th the High Court refused the case.
LINK to N.Y. Times Report on NYC Gun Litigation.
This report is provided by the NSSF.
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects NYC Lawsuit vs. Gun-Makers"
July 30th, 2008
It took years of litigation to do so, but Dick Heller and his team of lawyers prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing that the U.S. Constitution guarantees Heller’s right to have a handgun in his District of Columbia home for self-protection. Despite that landmark victory, the D.C. politicians charged with complying with the High Court’s ruling are still trying to impose strict requirements on handgun ownership. D.C.’s amended handgun laws limit the types of handguns allowed while imposing strict licensing requirements that are difficult to satisfy.
As a result, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington’s 32-year-old handgun ban, has filed a new lawsuit against the District of Columbia. In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that DC’s new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semi-automatic handguns. The suit also claims that the city’s regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self-defense in the home.
Plainly, the District of Columbia is attempting to skirt the D.C. v. Heller decision. By imposing difficult licensing regulations, the District’s politicians hope to maintain a de facto ban on handguns in place of the previous absolute ban. We applaud Heller’s effort to haul the District back into Federal Court to ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Share the post "Heller Files New Lawsuit vs. District of Columbia"
March 19th, 2008
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral auguments in the landmark D.C. v. Heller case. It appeared, based on the questions posed by the Justices, that the High Court may strike down the D.C.’s ban on handguns. But we’ll likely have to wait until May or June for a final decision.
Head Count: It looks Like 5:4 or 6:3
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Scalia all seemed to favor the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Roberts made his views clear right from the start, asking the District’s lawyer: “If [the Second Amendment] is limited to state militias, why would they say ‘the right of the people’?…In other words, why wouldn’t they say ‘state militias have the right to keep arms’?” Justice Thomas did not speak at the argument, but he can be expected to align with Roberts and Scalia. Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote needed to overturn the D.C. ban. Kennedy said the Second Amendment confers “a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.” That leaves four justices who may vote the other way: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens. Stevens might also vote with the majority for a 6-3 decision.
Most legal observers, including our correspondent, Robert Whitley, believe there will be at least 5 votes to overturn the D.C. ban. Whitley cautions however: “I think there will be a recognition of the individual right, and the D.C. ban will probably be invalidated, at least in its current form. But this isn’t the end of the controversy… there will be many more battles ahead. The court will likely try to decide the case narrowly, and many of the justices seem to favor some kind of ‘reasonableness’ test for gun laws that will only lead to more legal challenges in the months and years ahead.”
Richard Heller, the Man in the Middle
After the oral arguments, Robert Whitley interviewed Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the historic case. Robert observed: “Heller is a normal guy, like you and me. He’s a nice guy who simply felt the D.C. gun ban was wrong.” Heller lives in a small apartment in the heart of the District. One day, observing a bullet hole in the frame of his front door, he decided he wanted to keep a handgun to protect himself.
Heller works as a security guard in a Federal building. Heller told Whitley: “To me, the case is simple. I go to work, and I’m told to carry a gun to protect Federal employees. Yet when I go home, the District of Columbia says the value of my own life is not worth protecting. That’s just wrong.”
Jim Shepard, covering the case for The Outdoor Wire, recorded a remarkable exchange between Heller and reporters:
“… A reporter interjected: ‘the Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?”
The initial answer certainly wasn’t expected – Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.
Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, ‘the Mayor doesn’t know what he’s talking about.’
‘He doesn’t walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards – to keep him safe. But he says that I don’t have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?'”
When it comes right down to it, that’s what this case is really all about — an individual citizen’s basic, fundamental right to defend himself and his home. That’s a right the founders surely intended to guarantee in adopting the Second Amendment.
CLICK HERE for NBC News Video Report
Share the post "Supreme Court Appears to Favor Individual Rights View of Second Amendment"
February 15th, 2008
As you probably know by now, an important gun rights case, District of Columbia vs. Heller (docket 07-290), is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. As it directly involves the issue of individual rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this case may impact ALL firearms owners. Legal experts note that this is the first time in 70 years that the High Court has been asked to interpret the basic meaning of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 18. (Oral Arguments are scheduled for 10 am). Amicus briefs have been submitted by notable parties, including many U.S. States, and Vice President Dick Cheney recently lent his signature (in his role as President of the U.S. Senate) to a brief filed by a Congressional Caucus.
If you want to learn more, American Rifleman Magazine has an excellent article that covers the “Top 10 Facts” about D.C. vs. Heller. Authored by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, this is a “must-read” summary of the landmark case.
CLICK HERE to READ ARTICLE on SUPREME COURT CASE
Share the post "Supreme Court Hears Second Amendment Case March 18"
November 21st, 2007
 The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the much-discussed District of Columbia v. Heller case (Docket 04-7041), previously known as Parker vs. District of Columbia. This means the High Court WILL review the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the D.C. statute banning residents from owning handguns. The Court of Appeals held that the District of Columbia’s anti-gun law violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Court found, as a matter of law, that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. This was a “breakthrough” finding. Other Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment merely confers a “collective right” to keep and bear arms. In practical terms, this means that the Second Amendment applies to an organized militia (i.e. the National Guard), but not to individuals.
The High Court’s decision to hear D.C. v. Heller is historically significant. This will represent the first time the Supreme Court rules directly on the meaning of the Second Amendment since the U.S. v. Miller case in 1939. The decision in Miller was poorly reasoned and left many basic issues unresolved, including the key question “Does the Second Amendment confer an individual or collective right?”
The “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment is disfavored among legal scholars, despite what anti-gun advocacy groups claim. Many of the nation’s most respected law professors, including Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke, and Sanford Levinson of the Univ. of Texas, have strongly argued that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.
BACKGROUND
The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the High Court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., despite its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District’s gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that “The phrase ‘the right of the people’ . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” This was the second time in recent history that a Federal Circuit Court upheld the view that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that “All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the
Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”
Share the post "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Landmark Second Amendment Case"
|
