NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12549

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

.
So what's the chance of SCOTUS deciding to hear this?



If they do, when will it most likely be heard/decided on?

.

Well they have to wait for Obama's judge is seated. My guess is it will get denied. Obama doesn't want it

Obama's pick has nothing to do with this.

His pick is replacing Souter, who votes consistently with the liberal side of the court. This is going to be a straight-across replacement.

-Mark

No this will be an improvement as a latino women makes better decisions than white males. It's not a racial thing though.

I think it's fairly likely that SCOTUS will get around to deciding this issue, but it's really up to the justices to decide when they want to do it. The split between the recent decisions of the 2nd, 7th, and 9th Circuits makes it more likely it will be sooner rather than later.



If they decide to hear the case for next term there could be oral arguments early next year with a decision sometime in the Spring. I wouldn't expect anything sooner.

All of these cases are already in line for the fall 2009 schedule: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/09grantednotedlist.html

No, they don't have to wait for her to be seated, but unless something dramatic happens she will very likely be on the court in the fall if/when this case is argued.

Obama has absolutely ZERO say in what cases the supreme court takes. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The processes of picking what cases to hear is something the nine justices do in private. They don't even let their clerks or secretaries into the room when they grant or deny certiorari.

Has SCOTUS ever heard a case where one judge was switched out with another in the middle of the case?

.

Yes, it typically happens when a justice dies in the middle of a term. If the Court is split 4-4 during a term I think they try to wait for the new justice to provide a 5th vote if it looks like the empty seat will be filled during the term. The S. Ct. can also issue a 4-4 split opinion that allows the lower court ruling to stand. I don't expect anything like that to happen this Fall.

Just orthogonally ... reading the PR, you'd think that NRA was the moving force behind the Chicago lawsuit, wouldn't you?