Northwest Indiana Discussion

As observed in a recent article by Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes, in 2008 the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service.

The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well.

But a funny thing has happened, reports Barnes, in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. They’ve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.

“Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts — so far — have held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the people’s right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence,” contends the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in a report optimistically titled “Hollow Victory?”

According to a recently filed federal friend of the court brief in a case involving Charleston, West Virginia, in Heller, argues the Brady Center, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the narrow right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to possess a gun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. 554 U.S. at 635.

The Court explicitly found that the Second Amendment right is "not unlimited," and does not include the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Id. at 626. Moreover, the Court stressed that its opinion did not "cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id. at 626-27.

The Court specified that it identified these"presumptively lawful regulatory measures" only as a non-exhaustive list of examples. Id. at 627 n.26.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, the Court did not recognize a right to carry guns
in public. Indeed, in approvingly discussing historical limitations on the right to keep and bear
arms, the Court noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held
that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment[.]"
Id. at 626. Two years later, the Court "repeat[ ed] those assurances" that it had "made [] clear" in
Heller about the continued validity of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms."
McDonald, 130 S. ct. at 3047.

Just last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explicitly
declined to extend the Second Amendment right beyond the home, refusing to "push Heller beyond
its undisputed core holding." United States v. Masciandaro, _ F.3d _ , 201 I WL
1053618 at *16 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2011). The Court held: "On the question of Heller's
applicability outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court
itself * * * If ever there was an occasion for restraint, this would seem to be it." fd. at 16-17.
Other courts have exercised similar restraint. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 495
(2011) (if the Supreme Court "meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need
to say so more plainly."); People v. Dawson, 934 N.E.2d 598, 605-06 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
("Heller specifically limited its ruling to interpreting the amendment's protection of the right to
possess handguns in the home, not the right to possess handguns outside of the home in case of
confrontation.")?

The contested regulations do not infringe the right of law-abiding citizens to possess a
gun in the home for self-defense, and thus they do not implicate protected Second Amendment
activity. Charleston's license requirements and the cities' municipal property carrying
restrictions do not implicate protected Second Amendment activity because, by definition,
they apply only to the possession of guns outside the home. Any argument that these regulations
implicate the Second Amendment is foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's recent refusal in
Masciandaro to extend the Second Amendment right beyond the home. Moreover, the
municipal property carrying restrictions apply only to "sensitive places," and the Supreme Court
has repeatedly stressed that such laws are "presumptively lawful." See Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-
27 & n.26; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047; see also Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 92; Nordyke v. King,
563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[P]rohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within
the exception from the Second Amendment for 'sensitive places' that Heller recognized.")
(vacated and remanded after McDonald).

****
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE BRADY
CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Civil Action No.: 2: U-cv-0048


WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE
LEAGUE, INC., et a!.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CHARLESTON, et a!.,
Defendants

Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes, isn't the post a bastion of anti gun sentiments? And hasn't there been a long a rich history supporting the right to carry here in Indiana.

McDermott's stance must them come not as an attorney, but as a California native who relocated to this region Some might say a carpet bagger.

That may explain a concept, but are you saying McDermott now wants to reverse the trend of assuring law abiding citizens the right to carry for personal protection?

Again from what I have read, the trend is just the opposite, liberalizing 2nd Amendment rights.

Gun crime in Hammond is overwhelmingly commited by street thugs, not entitled either by criminal record or non licensed to carry.

How about a peek at current state law, which I believe superceeds McDermott's position.

State law supersedes McDermott's stance? Only if the state's new law is valid, and valid as enforceable in the manner designated by the legislation.

Apparently you guys missed the memo implied from the mayor's office: He is triple-dog daring that he is gonna fight implementation and enforcement of the state's new legislation. He will be backed up with mountain of precedent on the scope of Second Amendment rulings. The following citations are from a footnote to the legal brief submitted by the Brady Center above:

State v. Knight, 218 P.3d 1177, 1189 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009) ]("[i]t is clear that the [Heller] Court was drawing a narrow line regarding the violations related solely to use of a handgun in the home for self-defense purposes");

Gonzalez v. Village ofW Milwaukee, No. 09CV0384, 2010 WL 1904977, at *4 (E.D. Wis. May II , 2010) ("The Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of guns outside the home.");

United States v. Hart , 725 F. Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D. Mass. 2010) [b]("Heller does not hold, nor even suggest, that concealed weapons laws are unconstitutional.");

Dorr v. Weber, 741 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1005 (N.D. Iowa 2010) [b]("[A] right to carry a concealed weapon under the Second Amendment has not been recognized to date.");

Teng v. Town of Kensington, No. 09-cv-8-JL, 2010 WL 596526, at *5 (D.N.H. Feb. 17, 20 I 0) ("Given that Hellerrefers to outright 'prohibition on carrying concealed weapons' as 'presumptively lawful,' far lesser restrictions of the sort imposed here (i.e., requiring that Teng complete a one-page application and meet with the police chief to discuss it) clearly do not violate the Second Amendment.") (internal citation omitted);

United States v. Tooley, 717 F. Supp. 2d 580, 596 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) ("Additionally, possession of a firearm outside of the home or for purposes other than self-defense in the home are not within the 'core' of the Second Amendment right as defined by Heller.");

People v. Aguilar, No. 1-09-0840, 2011 WL 693241, at *6 (III. App. Ct. Feb. 23, 2011) [b]("[T]he decisions in Heller and McDonald were limited to interpreting the second amendment's protection of the right to possess handguns in the home, not the right to possess handguns outside the home.");

In re Factor, 2010 WL 1753307, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 21 , 2010) [b]("[Tlhe United States Supreme Court has not held or even implied that the Second Amendment prohibits laws that restrict carrying of concealed weapons.");

Riddick v. United States, 995 A.2d 212, 222 (D.C. 2010) [b](Second Amendment does not "compel the District to license a resident to carry and possess a handgun outside the confines of his home, however broadly defined." (quoting Sims v. United States, 963 A.2d 147, 150 (D.C. 2008))); Bastiani, 881 N'y.S.2d 591, 593 (2008).

An armed society is a polite society.

LOL. In theory, which is precisely Mac's point. It's starting to look like turn-of-20th century Tombstone or Dodge City: everyone armed and concerned with ensuring a shooting is legal-like.

Where have you gone Marshall Dillon our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

[


The resolution for this matter will come from the US Supreme Court, as the NRA is again taking Chicago to Court with regard to concealed carry.

I certainly hope Tom takes this up, as his future career in Lake County will end, as if it hasn't already. Tom very well may and I say may win this next election, but as a state wide candidate, the Democratic Party laughs at him. His candidacy for the US Senate was an indication of his viability.

Their is only one state in the country that has not approved a concealed carry permit criteria, that is Illinois. Tom is welcome to gain national attention, just as he did on Fox news after the election.

I hope Tom keeps up the good work, as he is obviously not listening to his handlers.
The real issue here is Tom thinks this will win him votes, far be it. This is only a way to siphon more tax dollars off to lawyers.

JCMT - I feel for ya, brother. Poor guy, to exist with such a limited horizon of thought and being. Please read, and weep, JCMT. Just let it all out, go on weep, and drain yourself of all that frustration and repressed resentment.

-------------

The Court explicitly found that the Second Amendment right is "not unlimited," and does not include the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Id. at 626. Moreover, the Court stressed that its opinion did not "cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id. at 626-27.

The Court specified that it identified these"presumptively lawful regulatory measures" only as a non-exhaustive list of examples. Id. at 627 n.26.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, the Court did not recognize a right to carry guns
in public. Indeed, in approvingly discussing historical limitations on the right to keep and bear
arms, the Court noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held
that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment[.]"
Id. at 626. Two years later, the Court "repeat[ ed] those assurances" that it had "made [] clear" in
Heller about the continued validity of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms."
McDonald, 130 S. ct. at 3047.

Just last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explicitly
declined to extend the Second Amendment right beyond the home, refusing to "push Heller beyond
its undisputed core holding."

-------------
Limited thought pal... at least your right on one subject (limited horizon), but you shouldn't talk about your hero that way. Sounds like your hero is attempting to weasel out of this one.

Instead of spending Hammond Taxpayers money, why not spend your own money on this litigation Tom?

Has the NRA called yet? I hear they are working on a feature article on your hero!

Another incident where Tom should have kept his friggin mouth shut.

I love it, the two biggest blow-hards going toe to toe.

Cat fight, cat fight, cat fight.

Just havin fun

Does anybody know this ladies husband Bill?