Friday, June 05, 2009

The 7th CIrcuit ruling

It seems the US 7th Circuit, in a unanimous decision, upheld the handgun bans in place in Chicago. The decision, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook is a fascinating discussion on federalism and in effect says that states and cities can make their own laws on who can have guns and the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated against the states. It's a fascinating legal back-flip from what has been described as a largely conservative bench. Investors Business Daily descibes the result:
The Circuit Court decision was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook and joined by Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer. Easterbrook's reasoning is fascinating. According to him, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.
That's ridiculous, of course, and the judge's reasoning is likewise ridiculous. No matter how meticulously he researches the question, no matter how diligently he crafts the decision, the idea that a basic right is not incorporated against the states is ridiculous on its face. In his decision, we might just as well say that a locale can ban free speech as part of a national experiment. The reasoning is ludicrous.

It's been appealed, and Easterbrook deserves a monumental smackdown. If that is what passes for reasoned thinking in Chicago, then the citizens should break out the tar and the feathers.

Hat tip to Jeff, at Alphecca


Old NFO said...

Tar... Check
Feathers... Working on that...

Termite said...

It will be appealed to SCOTUS, and likely accepted. And smacked down. To do otherwise will open Pandora's box regarding state laws on everything.

Windy Wilson said...

If it is not smacked down, it will be the death of federal authority on anything.
I think it was the Anarchangel who said that the judge decided this way because he thought such a change in policy had to come from the Supreme Court and not be made at the appellate level. A cop-out, of course, as appellate courts making decisions like the one he punted is how a split between the circuits occurs which is what makes the Supremes grant certiorari.

You are right, applying this to any other right the leftists say is guaranteed or protected by the Bill of Rights would demonstrate the fallacy of the reasoning.
In Los Angeles, (where the Mayor is a former gangster and current gangster sympathizer (along with other impeachable flaws), there was a kerfuffle a few years ago about the county seal containing a small cross to signify the historical fact that the city was founded as a mission-stop on the El Camino Real, from San Diego to San Francisco. The American Communist Lovers Union suggested to the Board of Supervisors that the cross on the seal was an "establishment of religion", which the First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. The Board caved and took the cross off. We can't have any visible signs of religion in America, now, can we?
A lawyer said to me that if one must interpret "establishment" so strictly in the First Amendment as to prohibit THE LITTLE CROSS, then how strictly must one interpret "shall not be infringed" in the Second?