Centiorari for McDonald v. City of Chicago Granted
The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs.
Certiorari for McDonald was granted on September 30, 2009. The NRA separately filed for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs which was not granted until after the decision in McDonald.
Subsequent to the Court of Appeals ruling, the Second Amendment Foundation requested that the Supreme Court review the case and on September 30, 2009 the request was granted. The National Rifle Association also requested review on the part of the plaintiffs and on January 25, 2010 was granted a motion for 'divided argument' on the case, meaning that both the Second Amendment Foundation sponsored attorney, Alan Gura and the NRA sponsored attorney, Paul Clement would both argue for the plaintiff.
It is worth noting that this 'divided argument' places the plaintiff at a bit of a disadvantage since the two attorneys split the time allotted for oral arguments. In addition, the two attorneys arguments originate in different points of law which could have the effect of complicating the consideration of the issue. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the success of Alan Gura in DC v. Heller. Several observers questioned the wisdom of the petition by the NRA and its motivation.
The Supreme Court today agreed to determine whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal to local and state laws.
The decision to hear the case follows the high court's high-profile ruling in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.
A day after the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, the National Rifle Association sued the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., to overturn an ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits.
The same attorney who challenged the district's ban, Alan Gura, filed the Chicago lawsuit.
The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns.
At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.
A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.
The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free speech or the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.