Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control
Headline Legal News
Gun control advocates are hoping they can win by losing when the Supreme Court rules on state and local regulation of firearms.
The justices will be deciding whether the right to possess guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.
But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."
By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns.
Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.
The new lawsuits were begun almost immediately after the court's blockbuster ruling in 2008 that struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. In that case, the court ruled for the first time that individuals have a right keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Because the nation's capital is a federal enclave, that ruling applied only to federal laws.
Related listings
-
Obama nominates Berkeley prof to appeals court
Headline Legal News 02/25/2010Goodwin Liu, 39, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, learned English in kindergarten and later became an honors graduate at Stanford and a Rhodes Scholar. He has taught at Berkeley since 2003 and was named associate dean of the law school in 2008.He als...
-
State won't pay legal fees for computer lawsuit
Headline Legal News 02/22/2010The state Finance Department has refused to pay the legal fees of a Montgomery law firm that was hired by a legislative oversight committee to stop the state from proceeding with an unbid $13 million computer contract.State Comptroller Thomas White h...
-
Samsung to pay Rambus $700 million in settlement
Headline Legal News 01/20/2010Samsung Electronics will pay Rambus Inc. $700 million over five years, and invest another $200 million in the chip design company as part of a settlement ending their legal disputes, the two companies said Tuesday. Samsung will make an upfront paymen...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.