HELENA, Mont. --
General rule of thumb: when looking to buy marijuana, don't text the sheriff. Authorities said a Helena teen sent out a text message last week in search of pot, but instead of contacting the drug dealer, he hit a wrong number and inadvertently sent the message to Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton.
The text read, "Hey Dawg, do you have a $20 I can buy right now?"
Dutton told the Helena Independent Record he initially thought it was a joke, but he quickly realized it was a real request for drugs. He responded to the text, and a detective pretending to be the dealer organized a meeting with the boy last Wednesday.
The detective spotted two teenage boys and a man at the arranged meeting spot and called the number three times to make sure he had the right person. Dutton said when the detective showed the teens his badge, their faces turned white and their knees began to wobble. One of the boys even fainted.
The man in the group turned out to be the father of one of the teens, and no citations were issued after the parents of both boys got involved.
"Trying to buy drugs is a crime, but it's probably worse that they had to face their parents," Dutton said.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Retired Wis. Cops Allowed to Carry Weapons
MILWAUKEE --
Retired Milwaukee police officers now have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
The Fire and Police Commission on Thursday night unanimously approved a plan for the Police Department to certify its retirees.
Any qualified citizen can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in 48 states, so many retired police officers in Milwaukee believe they should be allowed to also.
"I'd like to be able to defend myself. Right now, I don't have that right. So, right now, the only people carrying guns right now are police officers and the criminals," retired Milwaukee police Sgt. Wray Young said.
Young said fellow retirees have been waiting for six years for this request from Milwaukee's police chief to be approved.
The Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort told 12 News "Based on the evidence, we don't think there are benefits. However, we recognize that retired police officers have a different level of training and accountability, and that brings us some comfort."
The officers would have to take a refresher firearms course, qualify on the range and pay a $100 annual fee.
Retired Milwaukee police officers now have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
The Fire and Police Commission on Thursday night unanimously approved a plan for the Police Department to certify its retirees.
Any qualified citizen can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in 48 states, so many retired police officers in Milwaukee believe they should be allowed to also.
"I'd like to be able to defend myself. Right now, I don't have that right. So, right now, the only people carrying guns right now are police officers and the criminals," retired Milwaukee police Sgt. Wray Young said.
Young said fellow retirees have been waiting for six years for this request from Milwaukee's police chief to be approved.
The Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort told 12 News "Based on the evidence, we don't think there are benefits. However, we recognize that retired police officers have a different level of training and accountability, and that brings us some comfort."
The officers would have to take a refresher firearms course, qualify on the range and pay a $100 annual fee.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Latest and greatest social media site. They pay you to be a member
Calling all working the internet.
We read daily about how great you can do working Facebook and Myspace to promote your business, Well here's a new one to add to the list.
Fairly new with over 8000 plus users who log on several times a day.
Allow you to sell your product or provide your business information
Allow you to start user groups on any subject.
Plus they pay you to be a member....
Check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Charlie
cphelan@cdpinfo.com
We read daily about how great you can do working Facebook and Myspace to promote your business, Well here's a new one to add to the list.
Fairly new with over 8000 plus users who log on several times a day.
Allow you to sell your product or provide your business information
Allow you to start user groups on any subject.
Plus they pay you to be a member....
Check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Charlie
cphelan@cdpinfo.com
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Windows Live at work
This file created with Windows Live Writer
This is a test to check the usability of this program to create software for my customers.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Stimulus Check Promise Lures Florida Fugitives
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. --
Several dozen local fugitives were arrested when they showed up to the War Auditorium Memorial this week, thinking they were going to receive stimulus money.
The marquee outside the War Memorial Auditorium said that a group called the “South Florida Stimulus Coalition” was holding its two-day seminar on Wednesday and Thursday. But only a select few were invited to attend: those with outstanding arrest warrants.
Fort Lauderdale police sent a letter in the mail to several fugitives, saying they were chosen to receive $653 in stimulus money to help boost the economy. The letter had an official seal and came from the fictional "South Florida Stimulus Coalition." Police set up the phony organization to lure the suspects.
"These are individuals who are running away from the law, and it was done in a manner where they came to us freely," said Sgt. Frank Sousa of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.
Local 10’s Roger Lohse went undercover himself and videotaped the police as they conducted their stimulus sting. One after one, the fugitives pulled in and two police officers in yellow shirts directed them into the parking lot. At the front door, the fugitives handed over their identification to an undercover officer. Not long after he led them inside, officers handcuffed them and shuttled them out the back door to a waiting police cruiser.
Lohse used a home video camera to shoot the arrests and he kept his distance so he wouldn’t blow the officers' cover.
One man was so excited to get his money he ran up to the front door of the auditorium, without realizing the officers on the other side were going to arrest him. A few minutes later, Lohse videotaped him coming out the back door in handcuffs.
Another man brought his whole family along to collect. Detectives had to tell a third man that his girlfriend would not be coming back outside.
More than 100 people responded to the letter and set up appointments to pick up their checks. Police made a total of 76 arrests over the two days of the operation.
Source Officer.Com
Several dozen local fugitives were arrested when they showed up to the War Auditorium Memorial this week, thinking they were going to receive stimulus money.
The marquee outside the War Memorial Auditorium said that a group called the “South Florida Stimulus Coalition” was holding its two-day seminar on Wednesday and Thursday. But only a select few were invited to attend: those with outstanding arrest warrants.
Fort Lauderdale police sent a letter in the mail to several fugitives, saying they were chosen to receive $653 in stimulus money to help boost the economy. The letter had an official seal and came from the fictional "South Florida Stimulus Coalition." Police set up the phony organization to lure the suspects.
"These are individuals who are running away from the law, and it was done in a manner where they came to us freely," said Sgt. Frank Sousa of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.
Local 10’s Roger Lohse went undercover himself and videotaped the police as they conducted their stimulus sting. One after one, the fugitives pulled in and two police officers in yellow shirts directed them into the parking lot. At the front door, the fugitives handed over their identification to an undercover officer. Not long after he led them inside, officers handcuffed them and shuttled them out the back door to a waiting police cruiser.
Lohse used a home video camera to shoot the arrests and he kept his distance so he wouldn’t blow the officers' cover.
One man was so excited to get his money he ran up to the front door of the auditorium, without realizing the officers on the other side were going to arrest him. A few minutes later, Lohse videotaped him coming out the back door in handcuffs.
Another man brought his whole family along to collect. Detectives had to tell a third man that his girlfriend would not be coming back outside.
More than 100 people responded to the letter and set up appointments to pick up their checks. Police made a total of 76 arrests over the two days of the operation.
Source Officer.Com
Law Eliminates NYPD Stop-Frisk Database
NEW YORK --
Gov. David Paterson signed legislation Friday that eliminates a database of thousands of people stopped and frisked by New York City police without facing charges, calling the practice "not a policy for a democracy."
Paterson signed the law over vehement objections of New York City's mayor and police commissioner, who said the city was losing a key crime-fighting tool.
But the governor said the policy that targets criminals won't be affected by eliminating a database of people who were stopped, then released.
"This law does not in any way tamper with our stop-and-frisk policies," Paterson said. "What it does is it disallows the use of personal data of innocent people who have not done anything wrong. ... That is not a policy for a democracy."
Critics have said information from such stops, mainly of blacks and Latinos who are innocent, can lead to future police suspicion and surveillance. Police say the database helped to solve crimes, including anti-gay and anti-Hispanic bias attacks.
"Albany has robbed us of a great crime-fighting tool, one that saved lives," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement. "Without it, there will be, inevitably, killers and other criminals who won't be captured as quickly, or perhaps ever."
Paterson said he had met with Kelly and spoken to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but had not been persuaded that the database protects the city from crime.
"Civil justice, and I think common sense, would suggest that those who are questioned and not even accused of crimes be protected from any further stigma or suspicion," Paterson said.
He signed the bill at a press conference with the bill's sponsors and supporters including the city's public advocate, Bill de Blasio.
"Today's reform of the stop and frisk database reaffirms a basic value of this country. The government cannot keep tabs on people who have done nothing wrong," de Blasio said.
Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, praised Paterson for signing the legislation.
"Innocent people stopped by the police for doing nothing more than going to school, work or the subway should not become permanent criminal suspects," said Liberman. "By signing this bill, the Paterson administration has put itself on the right side of history and leaves an important legacy in support of civil rights, civil liberties and common sense."
In his sponsor's memo, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, D-Brooklyn, said that in 2009, the New York Police Department stopped 574,304 people, nearly 90 percent of them people of color, and nine out of 10 were released without any further legal action. Data show 2.5 million stops since 2005.
Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former NYPD captain who sponsored the bill, said Friday the bill would protect innocent people from being targeted by police, especially minorities.
"Our fear is not to have our sons (be) victims of aggressive criminal behavior, but we also don't want our children to be victims of aggressive police behavior," Adams said.
The automated database, believed to be the only one in the country, grew out of a law requiring police to keep details such as age and race on anyone they stop, and it was envisioned as a way to safeguard civil rights.
The law, enacted in 2001, required the police department to turn information over to lawmakers every quarter. It was aimed at uncovering whether police were disproportionately stopping black and Hispanic men. But police also indefinitely hold on to addresses and names of people stopped - information not required by the law.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, would not prohibit police from entering into an electronic database generic identifiers, such as gender, race and location of the stop.
Source Officer.Com
Gov. David Paterson signed legislation Friday that eliminates a database of thousands of people stopped and frisked by New York City police without facing charges, calling the practice "not a policy for a democracy."
Paterson signed the law over vehement objections of New York City's mayor and police commissioner, who said the city was losing a key crime-fighting tool.
But the governor said the policy that targets criminals won't be affected by eliminating a database of people who were stopped, then released.
"This law does not in any way tamper with our stop-and-frisk policies," Paterson said. "What it does is it disallows the use of personal data of innocent people who have not done anything wrong. ... That is not a policy for a democracy."
Critics have said information from such stops, mainly of blacks and Latinos who are innocent, can lead to future police suspicion and surveillance. Police say the database helped to solve crimes, including anti-gay and anti-Hispanic bias attacks.
"Albany has robbed us of a great crime-fighting tool, one that saved lives," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement. "Without it, there will be, inevitably, killers and other criminals who won't be captured as quickly, or perhaps ever."
Paterson said he had met with Kelly and spoken to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but had not been persuaded that the database protects the city from crime.
"Civil justice, and I think common sense, would suggest that those who are questioned and not even accused of crimes be protected from any further stigma or suspicion," Paterson said.
He signed the bill at a press conference with the bill's sponsors and supporters including the city's public advocate, Bill de Blasio.
"Today's reform of the stop and frisk database reaffirms a basic value of this country. The government cannot keep tabs on people who have done nothing wrong," de Blasio said.
Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, praised Paterson for signing the legislation.
"Innocent people stopped by the police for doing nothing more than going to school, work or the subway should not become permanent criminal suspects," said Liberman. "By signing this bill, the Paterson administration has put itself on the right side of history and leaves an important legacy in support of civil rights, civil liberties and common sense."
In his sponsor's memo, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, D-Brooklyn, said that in 2009, the New York Police Department stopped 574,304 people, nearly 90 percent of them people of color, and nine out of 10 were released without any further legal action. Data show 2.5 million stops since 2005.
Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former NYPD captain who sponsored the bill, said Friday the bill would protect innocent people from being targeted by police, especially minorities.
"Our fear is not to have our sons (be) victims of aggressive criminal behavior, but we also don't want our children to be victims of aggressive police behavior," Adams said.
The automated database, believed to be the only one in the country, grew out of a law requiring police to keep details such as age and race on anyone they stop, and it was envisioned as a way to safeguard civil rights.
The law, enacted in 2001, required the police department to turn information over to lawmakers every quarter. It was aimed at uncovering whether police were disproportionately stopping black and Hispanic men. But police also indefinitely hold on to addresses and names of people stopped - information not required by the law.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, would not prohibit police from entering into an electronic database generic identifiers, such as gender, race and location of the stop.
Source Officer.Com
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Ruling Tilts Law Against Gun Limits
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Supreme Court's historic decision Monday allowing gun owners to challenge city and state regulations as a violation of their Second Amendment rights clears the way for new challenges to firearms laws nationwide.
A five-justice conservative majority, over vigorous protests from the four more liberal justices, declared the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American notion of liberty and can shield gun owners from certain regulations across the country. Although the majority noted some gun laws would stand, such as prohibitions on felons possessing firearms, its rationale is certain to usher in a new era of litigation over gun control.
The case stemmed from a 28-year-old Chicago law that was a rare, total ban on handguns. The law was challenged by four homeowners who said they needed handguns for their safety. The high court's decision could fuel lawsuits against myriad local regulations - from firearms licensing requirements to limits on weapons carried outside the home.
"It's going to be city by city, town by town, block by block," National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre vowed Monday. "We're going to have to work into every level to make sure this constitutional victory isn't turned into a practical defeat."
Monday's decision was somewhat predictable, based the justices' 5-4 decision in 2008 that first found an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, and on the tenor of oral arguments in the Chicago case in March.
Yet it greatly expands the force and consequences of the ruling two years ago and generated new concern from city officials worried it would undercut gun laws and lead to more violence.
"Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said at City Hall. "Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns."
David Pope, president of the village of Oak Park, outside Chicago, which also was defending a handgun ban, said the ruling curbs local flexibility to address crime. "For a long time, we always thought it was reasonable and constitutional for different cities and towns to have different regulations," he said.
Several large cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and Oakland, had urged the court not to rule against Chicago. They were joined by three states with urban centers, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, that warned if the high court extended the Second Amendment's reach, "nearly every firearms law will become the subject of a constitutional challenge, and even in cases where the law ultimately survives, its defense will be costly and time-consuming."
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which supports strict gun-control laws, predicted more than a new tide of lawsuits.
"People will die because of this decision," she said. "It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry."
As Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito announced the court's opinion from the bench Monday, though, he said experts differ on whether private gun possession increases or decreases death and injury.
Alito also said that the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing the right to keep and bear arms under federal law, steered the court's decision Monday. The 2008 case arose from a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
In Monday's case, Alito deemed the right to bear arms "fundamental" and noted the court had previously held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to both the federal government and the states. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Breyer read portions of his dissent from the bench Monday, warning the new ruling would interfere with legislative efforts nationwide to control firearms and violence.
Dissenting separately, Justice Stevens, who is retiring, criticized the majority's view that the Second Amendment right to firearms is so fundamental and valuable that it must be applied broadly.
"Just as (firearms) can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders," Stevens wrote, "they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims. The threat that firearms will be misused is far from hypothetical, for gun crime has devastated many of our communities."
'Not the end of all gun laws'
Monday's case, brought by Otis McDonald and three other Chicagoans who said they wanted to keep handguns in their home for self-defense, presented the second round of high-stakes litigation over the scope of the Second Amendment.
For decades, despite polls showing Americans believed in an individual right to bear arms, most federal judges had ruled that the Second Amendment covered only a right of state militias, such as National Guards. That changed when the justices ruled definitively in 2008 there is an individual right to firearms in the home for personal safety.
In trying to distinguish its handgun ban from the Washington, D.C., ordinance struck down in 2008, the City of Chicago had argued that firearms violence there was of such a magnitude that the court should not extend its earlier decision to the states.
Chicago officials argued the Second Amendment involves a right to possess an item designed to kill or cause injury and cannot be likened to, for example, the First Amendment right of free speech, because it is not fundamental to individual liberty.
Alito's opinion for the court rejected that idea. He said that "a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states." He also dismissed arguments from Chicago officials and their backers that the court's extending the Second Amendment to the states would threaten all existing gun laws.
He said the Heller decision "recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.' We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, (the decision) does not imperil law regulating firearms."
Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion signed by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, insisted state and local communities have carefully considered how they want to regulate guns and that their judgments would now be usurped by judges.
The Chicago challengers' case was brought on June 26, 2008, the day the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. Chicagoans Adam Orlov and Colleen and David Lawson joined McDonald in the case.
They were represented by Virginia lawyer Alan Gura, who had taken the lead on Heller.
"The court has made clear that the Second Amendment is a powerful, meaningful right," Gura said Monday.
"This is not the end of all gun laws. We weren't seeking an end to all gun laws. But it is going to be the end of those laws meant only to interfere with people's constitutional rights."
He said some registration laws, for example, can be so cumbersome that they restrict gun rights. Gura said he would soon be filing more lawsuits.
Some cities already revising laws
Chicago's Mayor Daley suggested the court's decision reflected a lack of understanding of the tragedies wrought by gun violence. "To suggest that Chicago's elected officials haven't done enough to protect our city's residents shows many of our highest level officials don't understand that gun violence pervades America, not just Chicago," he said.
He said the city was considering how to revise its law. The justices' rationale is likely to lead to the invalidation of the Chicago handgun ban, but the high court's majority did not definitely rule against the city's ban, and instead sent Monday's case back to lower courts for final action.
Some cities had begun revising their gun-control laws in anticipation of Monday's ruling. In Wilmette, Ill., Village Manager Timothy Frenzer said the community repealed its 19-year-old gun ban shortly after the high court's 2008 decision, largely because the "outcome (Monday) was predictable."
"All the groundwork had been laid in 2008 for the court to take the step it did today," Frenzer says.
In the two years since the community's gun ban was repealed, Frenzer says there has been "no detectable change" in crime.
Some cities, including New York, have strict gun licensing rules that critics such as LaPierre say end up being a ban for some would-be gun owners.
"I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety," said Bloomberg, co-chairman of the national coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
The majority of states sided with those challenging Chicago's ban. Thirty-eight states, led by Texas, said the Second Amendment should apply broadly. They said that some 44 states have a right to keep and bear arms in their own state constitutions.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers' reactions reflected the public's deep divisions over gun laws.
Judiciary Committee members Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the ruling. Hatch called it a "victory for law-abiding gun owners." Leahy said "state and local governments will now have to proceed more carefully" on gun regulations, but "it will be in respect of a right that belongs to all Americans."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, countered that she was "extremely dismayed" by the court's ruling.
"I believe the proliferation of guns has made this country less safe, not more safe," said Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor. She assumed that job in 1978, after then-mayor George Moscone was fatally shot by former supervisor Dan White.
Source Officer.Com
A five-justice conservative majority, over vigorous protests from the four more liberal justices, declared the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American notion of liberty and can shield gun owners from certain regulations across the country. Although the majority noted some gun laws would stand, such as prohibitions on felons possessing firearms, its rationale is certain to usher in a new era of litigation over gun control.
The case stemmed from a 28-year-old Chicago law that was a rare, total ban on handguns. The law was challenged by four homeowners who said they needed handguns for their safety. The high court's decision could fuel lawsuits against myriad local regulations - from firearms licensing requirements to limits on weapons carried outside the home.
"It's going to be city by city, town by town, block by block," National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre vowed Monday. "We're going to have to work into every level to make sure this constitutional victory isn't turned into a practical defeat."
Monday's decision was somewhat predictable, based the justices' 5-4 decision in 2008 that first found an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, and on the tenor of oral arguments in the Chicago case in March.
Yet it greatly expands the force and consequences of the ruling two years ago and generated new concern from city officials worried it would undercut gun laws and lead to more violence.
"Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said at City Hall. "Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns."
David Pope, president of the village of Oak Park, outside Chicago, which also was defending a handgun ban, said the ruling curbs local flexibility to address crime. "For a long time, we always thought it was reasonable and constitutional for different cities and towns to have different regulations," he said.
Several large cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and Oakland, had urged the court not to rule against Chicago. They were joined by three states with urban centers, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, that warned if the high court extended the Second Amendment's reach, "nearly every firearms law will become the subject of a constitutional challenge, and even in cases where the law ultimately survives, its defense will be costly and time-consuming."
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which supports strict gun-control laws, predicted more than a new tide of lawsuits.
"People will die because of this decision," she said. "It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry."
As Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito announced the court's opinion from the bench Monday, though, he said experts differ on whether private gun possession increases or decreases death and injury.
Alito also said that the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing the right to keep and bear arms under federal law, steered the court's decision Monday. The 2008 case arose from a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
In Monday's case, Alito deemed the right to bear arms "fundamental" and noted the court had previously held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to both the federal government and the states. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Breyer read portions of his dissent from the bench Monday, warning the new ruling would interfere with legislative efforts nationwide to control firearms and violence.
Dissenting separately, Justice Stevens, who is retiring, criticized the majority's view that the Second Amendment right to firearms is so fundamental and valuable that it must be applied broadly.
"Just as (firearms) can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders," Stevens wrote, "they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims. The threat that firearms will be misused is far from hypothetical, for gun crime has devastated many of our communities."
'Not the end of all gun laws'
Monday's case, brought by Otis McDonald and three other Chicagoans who said they wanted to keep handguns in their home for self-defense, presented the second round of high-stakes litigation over the scope of the Second Amendment.
For decades, despite polls showing Americans believed in an individual right to bear arms, most federal judges had ruled that the Second Amendment covered only a right of state militias, such as National Guards. That changed when the justices ruled definitively in 2008 there is an individual right to firearms in the home for personal safety.
In trying to distinguish its handgun ban from the Washington, D.C., ordinance struck down in 2008, the City of Chicago had argued that firearms violence there was of such a magnitude that the court should not extend its earlier decision to the states.
Chicago officials argued the Second Amendment involves a right to possess an item designed to kill or cause injury and cannot be likened to, for example, the First Amendment right of free speech, because it is not fundamental to individual liberty.
Alito's opinion for the court rejected that idea. He said that "a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states." He also dismissed arguments from Chicago officials and their backers that the court's extending the Second Amendment to the states would threaten all existing gun laws.
He said the Heller decision "recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.' We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, (the decision) does not imperil law regulating firearms."
Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion signed by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, insisted state and local communities have carefully considered how they want to regulate guns and that their judgments would now be usurped by judges.
The Chicago challengers' case was brought on June 26, 2008, the day the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. Chicagoans Adam Orlov and Colleen and David Lawson joined McDonald in the case.
They were represented by Virginia lawyer Alan Gura, who had taken the lead on Heller.
"The court has made clear that the Second Amendment is a powerful, meaningful right," Gura said Monday.
"This is not the end of all gun laws. We weren't seeking an end to all gun laws. But it is going to be the end of those laws meant only to interfere with people's constitutional rights."
He said some registration laws, for example, can be so cumbersome that they restrict gun rights. Gura said he would soon be filing more lawsuits.
Some cities already revising laws
Chicago's Mayor Daley suggested the court's decision reflected a lack of understanding of the tragedies wrought by gun violence. "To suggest that Chicago's elected officials haven't done enough to protect our city's residents shows many of our highest level officials don't understand that gun violence pervades America, not just Chicago," he said.
He said the city was considering how to revise its law. The justices' rationale is likely to lead to the invalidation of the Chicago handgun ban, but the high court's majority did not definitely rule against the city's ban, and instead sent Monday's case back to lower courts for final action.
Some cities had begun revising their gun-control laws in anticipation of Monday's ruling. In Wilmette, Ill., Village Manager Timothy Frenzer said the community repealed its 19-year-old gun ban shortly after the high court's 2008 decision, largely because the "outcome (Monday) was predictable."
"All the groundwork had been laid in 2008 for the court to take the step it did today," Frenzer says.
In the two years since the community's gun ban was repealed, Frenzer says there has been "no detectable change" in crime.
Some cities, including New York, have strict gun licensing rules that critics such as LaPierre say end up being a ban for some would-be gun owners.
"I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety," said Bloomberg, co-chairman of the national coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
The majority of states sided with those challenging Chicago's ban. Thirty-eight states, led by Texas, said the Second Amendment should apply broadly. They said that some 44 states have a right to keep and bear arms in their own state constitutions.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers' reactions reflected the public's deep divisions over gun laws.
Judiciary Committee members Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the ruling. Hatch called it a "victory for law-abiding gun owners." Leahy said "state and local governments will now have to proceed more carefully" on gun regulations, but "it will be in respect of a right that belongs to all Americans."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, countered that she was "extremely dismayed" by the court's ruling.
"I believe the proliferation of guns has made this country less safe, not more safe," said Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor. She assumed that job in 1978, after then-mayor George Moscone was fatally shot by former supervisor Dan White.
Source Officer.Com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
