Difference between revisions of "Peoples Rights Org. v. City of Columbus"

Revision as of 22:06, April 28, 2008

raw4t64563y

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In ''Peoples Rights Org. v. City of Columbus'', 152 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 1998), the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] considered a challenge to an Ohio [[gun control]] ordinance and rejected claims based on the [[Second Amendment]], but did invalidate portions of the ordinance based on vagueness and irrationality grounds.  The focus of the challenge was an assert right to own so-called "assault weapons."
+raw4t64563y
-The 2-1 panel held that:
-:This circuit has explained that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976); see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"). In any event, we note that the Second Amendment could not apply to this case. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment; hence, the restrictions of the Second Amendment operate only upon the Federal Government. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-65, 29 L. Ed. 615, 6 S. Ct. 580 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876).
-[[category:Circuit Cases]]
-[[category:Sixth Circuit]]
-[[category:Second Amendment]]
-[[category:Fourteenth Amendment]]