Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.

On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years.

A short distance from the court, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Stevens.

In the guns case, Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.

It's amazing that courts all across the country jump all over cases involving things like a school having a religious based program at Christmas because of the 1st Amendment "Seperation of church and state" but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment these same courts seem to think the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.

i'll bet anything that chicago handles this the same way DC did....make the regulations so onerous and obfuscated that barely anyone will be able to get a legal hand gun anyways. 

In other words spit on the constitution until called out on it by the supreme court and then just merely ignore and disregard it after that. 

aaaaaaaaaaand I called it.  The "regulations" are so onerous that owning a gun is next to impossible in Chicago anyways.

What I find interesting is that right in the Supreme Court Ruling was a statement of fact that Chicago's gun ban did not reduce gun related violence at all.  In fact it actually increased after the ban.  Yet, they are still hell bent on regulating the piss out of legal gun ownership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban