Will Cheek quoted in the Tennessean on the Supreme Court Suggestion on Gun Bans
Tennessean
Supreme Court justices may end cities' gun bans
By Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities' outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nationwide ownership right fervently sought by gun advocates. But the justices indicated that less severe limits could survive, continuing disputes over the "right to keep and bear arms."
Chicago-area residents who want handguns for protection in their homes are asking the court to extend its 2008 decision in support of gun rights in Washington, D.C., to state and local laws.
Such a ruling would firmly establish a right that has been the subject of politically charged and often fierce debate for decades. But it also would ensure years of legal challenges to sort out exactly which restrictions may stand and which must fall.
Ruling against Chicago law wouldn't affect TN
Nashville attorney Will Cheek said a Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago law prohibiting the carrying of loaded weapons outside the home would be a clear victory for gun rights, but it would change nothing in Tennessee because the state has no such gun restrictions.
"Not only can you have a gun in your home here, but you can carry it into a park if you want," Cheek said. "Gun laws that were passed in the cities in the 1980s were effective, but now anyone can get a gun on the street."
Last year, Cheek represented Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn in contesting a state law allowing Tennesseans with state-issued carry permits to take their guns into restaurants and bars.
A judge said the law was unconstitutional.
"Property rights are more important than a person's right to carry a gun," Cheek said. "Requiring someone to let someone come on their property with a gun interferes with property rights.
"I am a strong proponent of the right to carry guns in places that are safe, but in places that have a lot of people, there should be rules governing who should have a gun. Most of the time, people who are carrying guns are not trained to defend citizens and themselves against a threat."
Sponsors of the Tennessee law are expected to bring it back with changes aimed at getting it past the court ruling.
About the Chicago case, Cheek said:
"The city decided it didn't want everyone to have a gun because they were living on top of each other, but the Second Amendment is stronger than the will of the people," he said.
"The majority will almost always protect itself. The Constitution was designed to protect the minority, and gun owners are a minority that deserve such protection."
'08 ruling challenged
The outcome of the Washington lawsuit in 2008 already has spawned hundreds of court challenges, including one in Massachusetts over a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.
Two years ago, the court announced that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws and struck down a ban on handguns and trigger lock requirement for other guns in Washington, a city with unique federal status. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms.
The court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local laws. Still, "states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was among the majority in the 2008 decision.
"Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he said.
The justices themselves acknowledged that only through future lawsuits would the precise contours of the constitutional gun right be established. "We haven't said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller," Chief Justice John Roberts said, using the name of the Washington resident who challenged the city's ban.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
