It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
From 28 USC 1251 (I think I remember the cite correctly, anyway, that's the whole section.) Oh, original jurisdiction means they're the first one to look at the case, exclusive jurisdiction means they're the only one who can look at the case.
(a)The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b)The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1)All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2)All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3)All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent major gun ban cases reinforced the right to bear arms, but leave the door open for some additional ownership restrictions, said John Carroll, the dean of Cumberland School of Law.
Carroll, a former federal judge, said today that the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller and the 2010 ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago, did not provide lower courts with a lot of guidance in how to interpret efforts at gun restrictions.
The 2010 decision by the court found that Chicago's effort to restrict handguns and other guns was also not consistent with the 2nd Amendment rights for residents of states like Alabama, not just federal territories.
But Carroll, added, the decisions also did not provide much cover for gun rights advocates who would argue the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon.
The Heller case stemmed from a handgun ordinance in Washington, D.C. that required handgun owners to get a one-year license from the police chief and required owners to keep the guns locked and unloaded at home. Resident Dick Heller applied for a license, but was refused and then filed a lawsuit.
In his majority opinion in the court's 5-4 ruling in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
But, the justice also argued the protection has some limits.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ..." Scalia wrote that the opinion was not in conflict with bans on gun ownership for convicted felons or the mentally ill. He also did not argue against restrictions on gun-carrying in places like schools and government buildings.
Carroll said Scalia's opinion also includes language that may help those who want restrictions on assault rifles and magazines that can hold large numbers of bullets.
The justice wrote that the opinion should not be seen as casting doubt on "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (The court's 1939 Miller case) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."