A Win in Chicago vs McDonald

[Zero_G]

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision
"People will die because of this decision."

This is very probably true. However the difference is it will now be the bad guys dying rather than defenseless citizens.

Keith

[suthdj]

What bothers me is the mention that we have the right to own guns for self defense in our home, Bull we own guns to keep the Govt on its toes and to provide for self defense.

[fickman]

Great news!



NEXT!

[bnc]

What bothers me is the mention that we have the right to own guns for self defense in our home, Bull we own guns to keep the Govt on its toes and to provide for self defense.

Exactly. The 2nd Amendment was created so that free men may protect themselves from government and any other group or individual that tries to deprive them (us) of their life, liberty, and property.

[baseballguy2001]

I find it rather odd surfing around today, reading some web sites and blogs saying the Supreme Court handed down an "activist" ruling. I just shake my head and wonder, what part of the Bill of Rights is activist? One article said it was a 'new found' right, as if the Court made up the 2A out of thin air.

[tacticool]

I find it rather odd surfing around today, reading some web sites and blogs saying the Supreme Court handed down an "activist" ruling. I just shake my head and wonder, what part of the Bill of Rights is activist? One article said it was a 'new found' right, as if the Court made up the 2A out of thin air.

They probably never read the constitution.

The same as they didn't read the AZ immigration law before spouting their racist, hate-filled rhetoric against that.

[baldeagle]

In my opinion (IANAL) the ruling today is much greater than the 2nd amendment. What the Court ruled today is that the 14th Amendment incorporates ALL eight amendments. This means that states and the courts must honor all eight amendments. No longer can they pick and choose which rights they will support and which ones they will suppress. That is HUGE! It's a tremendous victory for liberty and an in-your-face slap at liberals who believe some rights are important and others not so much. Of course the victory for RKBA is huge as well, but this ruling stretches farther than that. Americans can now celebrate that no matter what state they live in, if that state tries to abrogate ANY of their rights, they can sue and enjoy relief from the federal government.

Rather than an activist ruling, this ruling represents a return to Constitutional government. To me it's as far reaching as the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's and will have a similar effect. Some states will resist at first (for example, California and Massachusetts), but the law is on the side of the citizens and they will prevail in court. I look for states like California to now have to completely rethink their gun control laws and apply them evenly across their state. No longer can country Sheriffs deny access to guns, making their counties gun free. No longer can cities discriminate against their citizens and only issue permits for the privileged. This is a game changer.

If there are any Constitutional lawyers on this forum, I would appreciate comments on whether my analysis is too optimistic. I am definitely feeling euphoric today.

[tarkus]

Does that mean a concealed carry license will now be as easy to get as voter registration or a religious freedom license?

[OldSchool]

Unfortunately, the effort to incorporate 2A has not been won, and could still be lost in the near future.

The fact that "self-defense" has been officially recognized as a "historical" right (for the first time ever, I believe) is a good thing. The problem is that the four dissenting opinions disagreed specifically with that point.

The decision was 5 to 4, and one of the 5 is leaving the bench. The dissenters were confident enough in the new tilt to the SCOTUS (and Kagan's existing stand against 2A) that the dissenting opinions went against many old useful tactics regarding other Bill of Rights decisions. For example, the majority used 14A in this case as judicial precedent to support incorporation (the dissenters saying in this case that the decision limits states' ability to shape their own laws); that's a complete switch from previous conservative and liberal arguments using 14A.

It was possible (and some expected) that the decision would have been by a much wider margin, but the dissenters even ignored one interesting fact: They could have used a vote with the majority to help shape the final verdict, to influence future laws. That tells me that their next plan of attack is already set, and they expect a rehearing.

Expect another challenge soon (I'd give it one to two years), with Kagan on the bench, and the possibility for a different outcome. One of the liberals' most common tools has been "judicial precedence," but expect them to do a one-eighty to overturn this one.

Many here have probably figured out before that I'm a Centrist. I don't use the term Liberal and Conservative lightly; we each tend to reflect both (since we are Americans, after all). I truly despise the fact that legal arguments are based completely on political tendencies, rather than on clear-thinking perusal of current evidence of past precedent, present necessity, and future expectations.

Moreover, it grieves me that so many "advocacy groups" are ready to ignore and even refute the documented facts of citizens being held at the mercy of thugs, simply to further ignorance and political agendas; that is absolutely unconscionable. However, I can only continue to hope that the values of respect and pride, that I learned so many years ago, eventually prevail.

As always sorry if I have offended. I did not intend to do so.
</soapbox>

[baldeagle]

Does that mean a concealed carry license will now be as easy to get as voter registration or a religious freedom license?

I don't know if this question was directed at me because of my comments or at someone else or was simply a question begging for an answer.

In my opinion (if I may take the liberty of answering you), the answer is no. States will still be allowed to restrict gun ownership and usage to citizens who meet certain qualifying criteria (such as the CHL laws in Texas.) This decision will wipe out all gun bans (although it may take more cases before some places comply) and will also strike down arbitrary and capricious laws and ordinances that effectively act as bans on gun ownership (such as states that leave gun ownership decisions up to the local police or country sheriffs.) Look for states that haven't already to adopt uniform laws that apply across the state and equally to each citizen of the state. This COULD lead to reciprocity across the nation, although I would expect that to take years to take effect. States like New York and California will have to adjust to the new reality or spend all their time in court defending their attempts to deny citizens their rights.

[baldeagle]

OldSchool, I don't mean to offend, but I believe you are wrong. Justice Stevens left the bench today. Kagan, if approved, will replace him, so the vote will remain 5-4 in any future 2A litigation.

[LarryH]

The decision was 5 to 4, and one of the 5 is leaving the bench.
As always sorry if I have offended. I did not intend to do so.
</soapbox>

No. Stevens was one of the four; he is leaving.

You did not offend me. Your logic was correct, one of your initial assumptions was not.

[OldSchool]

OldSchool, I don't mean to offend, but I believe you are wrong. Justice Stevens left the bench today. Kagan, if approved, will replace him, so the vote will remain 5-4 in any future 2A litigation.

Thank You!!!! Good catch. I'm not sure how I missed that, but I must have left that plug out again (the one that keeps the memory from leaking...).

Sorry 'bout that, the Party's still on, for now!

[baldeagle]

I'm still plowing my way through the opinion, but this is astounding to me. Justice Scalia absolutely eviscerates Justice Stevens' reasoning in his dissenting opinion. (The note in red is my addition to the original text.)

I can find no other explanation for such certitude except that JUSTICE STEVENS, despite his forswearing of “personal and private notions,” post, at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted), deeply believes it [the 2nd amendment] should be out.
The subjective nature of JUSTICE STEVENS’ standard is also apparent from his claim that it is the courts’ prerogative—indeed their duty—to update the Due Process Clause so that it encompasses new freedoms the Framers were too narrow-minded to imagine, post, at 19–20, and n. 21. Courts, he proclaims, must “do justice to [the Clause’s] urgent call and its open texture” by exercising the “interpretive discretion the latter embodies.” Post, at 21. (Why the people are not up to the task of deciding what new rights to protect, even though it is they who are authorized to make changes, see U. S. Const., Art. V, is never explained.2) And it would be “judicial abdication” for a judge to “tur[n] his back” on his task of determining what the Fourteenth Amendment covers by “outsourc[ing]” the job to “historical sentiment,” post, at 20—that is, by being guided by what the American people throughout our history have thought. It is only we judges, exercising our “own reasoned judgment,” post, at 15, who can be entrusted with deciding the Due Process Clause’s scope—which rights serve the Amendment’s “central values,” post, at 23—which basically means picking the rights we want to protect and discarding those we do not.
2 JUSTICE STEVENS insists that he would not make courts the sole interpreters of the “liberty clause”; he graciously invites “[a]ll Americans” to ponder what the Clause means to them today. Post, at 20, n.
22. The problem is that in his approach the people’s ponderings do not matter, since whatever the people decide, courts have the last word.

Unreal. This is an absolute slap in the face of Justice Stevens in his last day on the bench. I'll bet he wishes now he wasn't retiring today so he would have an opportunity to strike back.