Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Chicago Criminal attorney comments on the exceptions to the 2nd Amendment

This Chicago Criminal attorney has posted here, here, and here about the 2nd Amendment.  It appears the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that not all individuals are permitted to have guns.  Hold on, this is going to be a rough ride.

 A person to whom a statute properly applies can’t obtain relief based on arguments that a differently situated person might present. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Although the Salerno principle has been controversial, and the Justices have allowed “overbreadth” arguments when dealing with laws that restrict speech and reach substantially more conduct than the justifications advanced for the statute support, see Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1587, the Court has continued to cite Salerno favorably in other situations. See, e.g., Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449–50 (2008); cf. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 167–68 (2007) (observing that “facial” challenges to statutes generally are restricted to litigation under the First Amendment). If convictions may be used to limit where sex offenders can live (and whether they must register), see Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), a disqualification-onconviction statute such as §922(g)(9) also is generally proper. Whether a misdemeanant who has been law abiding for an extended period must be allowed to carry guns again, even if he cannot satisfy §921(a)(33)(B)(ii), is a question not presented today.  There will be time enough to consider that subject when it arises.
 Once all of the exceptions to the Constitution are carved out, the Founding Fathers’ Original Document will be meaningless.  

1 comment:

  1. Most of the 7th Circuit judges are connected to the Rabidly anti-gun rights Daley/Burke Crime Families. They will follow those despots to the grave.