McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[eapking]

Is due out tomorrow (6/24) or Monday (6/28).

[JayC]

Is due out tomorrow (6/24) or Monday (6/28).

Here is hoping it opens Pandora's box for us.

[Guest jackdm3]

Here is hoping it opens Pandora's box for us.

I heard that could be a bad thing.

[Oh Shoot]

Here is hoping it opens Pandora's box for us.

I heard that could be a bad thing.

Yup, poor analogy, or metaphor, or something.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I got what he meant, though. I'd like to see what a Janet Napolitano type thugette

would try to do with that message sent to her? i hope Obama slips in the mud and

does something really stupid, along with Daley threatening a World court lawsuit.

[Oh Shoot]

I got what he meant, though. I'd like to see what a Janet Napolitano type thugette

would try to do with that message sent to her? i hope Obama slips in the mud and

does something really stupid, along with Daley threatening a World court lawsuit.

I don't see much change that will happen, except that folks in Cook County (and anywhere else,although I don't know of anywhere else they're banned) will be able to keep handguns in their homes.

After jumping through whatever outrageous hoops to do it, 'bout like it currently is in D. C. or NYC.

It won't even change all the ridiculous "assault weapon" bans and limited capacity mag laws that a number of states have.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going to try to argue something I have almost completely forgot about this

with you, OS, because I will have to get back up to speed. But I do recall SCOTUS

incorporating the 2nd amendment, or something to that effect, and at another point

there was talk about the potential effects this ruling could have on other gun laws,

particularly federal gun legislation.

I'll have to defer to others better briefed on this subject, until then.

I do have a feeling that SCOTUS's opinion won't be exclusively specific to Chicago.

[Oh Shoot]

...

I do have a feeling that SCOTUS's opinion won't be exclusively specific to Chicago.

No, you'll be able to own a handgun (in your home) anywhere.

Won't affect carry, or licensing/registration, or bans on specific weapons configurations anywhere.

Though I've read a number of lofty essays about how it could change the concept of firearms laws in general in the US, the above is about as far as anything will be "incorporated" as far as I can see.

Maybe it will make other lawsuits against individual state laws easier to overcome, but I don't think that's what "incorporation" really means.

But I'll keep a good thought for your hopes and hope that I'm being too narrow sighted on the matter.

- OS

Edited June 24, 2010 by OhShoot

[Guest PapaB]

No opinion issued on the case today. Looks like Monday will be the day.

I'm not sure how this case would affect those of us in TN since our State Constitution addresses the right to keep and bear arms.

The Chief Justice announced that Monday will be the last day they issue opinions. They're not expected to hold any cases over for next term so we should know McDonald v. Chicago by 10:30 am on the 28th.

[tntnixon]

I'm not sure how this case would affect those of us in TN since our State Constitution addresses the right to keep and bear arms.

Well, if the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, it would null and and void the "to prevent crime" clause, since the US Constitution has no such provision. Incorporation doesn't allow the state to be more stringent than what would be allowed under the US Constitution.

[JayC]

I don't see much change that will happen, except that folks in Cook County (and anywhere else,although I don't know of anywhere else they're banned) will be able to keep handguns in their homes.

After jumping through whatever outrageous hoops to do it, 'bout like it currently is in D. C. or NYC.

It won't even change all the ridiculous "assault weapon" bans and limited capacity mag laws that a number of states have.

- OS

Depending on the wording... it could have much farther reaching impacts than that... Heller makes the 2nd Amendment an individual right (duhh what took 200+ years)... If McDonald binds the states to adhere to the 2nd Amendment it will have much farther reaching impacts than just owning a firearm.

No, CA assault weapons ban... No magazine restrictions on weapons in any state... I suspect that we'll see sucessful challenges to anti-carry laws... TN HCP permit costs for example are probably unconstitutional (If the permit itself is even constitutional)...

This is a much bigger deal than just Chicago residents being able to go and buy a handgun.

[JayC]

No opinion issued on the case today. Looks like Monday will be the day.

I'm not sure how this case would affect those of us in TN since our State Constitution addresses the right to keep and bear arms.

The Chief Justice announced that Monday will be the last day they issue opinions. They're not expected to hold any cases over for next term so we should know McDonald v. Chicago by 10:30 am on the 28th.

It would likely make the legislator regulating wearing unconstitutional.... Since no such restriction is in the 2nd Amendment.

[RobertNashville]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Carmentr%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-alt:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I claim no specific expertise in this case or its potential impact on firearm laws in general but of the experts I have read and/or listened to, they don’t seem to be expecting any earth-shattering changes from this ruling (even though the ruling is expected to be positive for gun owners).

<o></o>

I believe we are going to keep seeing progress toward restoring the Second Amendment to its actual, simple to understand meaning in many states but we have a long, long way to go.

Moreover, I would say we aren’t just fighting against incorrect/emotion-based arguments against firearms by those who would like to see all of them disappear (except of course for the ones carried by their own personal bodyguards) but we also are fighting against a large (and seemingly ever-growing) segment of the population that simply don’t know or don’t like or don’t believe in or don’t want “individual rights’ to anything. Such people are as much the enemy of the Second Amendment as Sara Brady is.

Even those people who can’t articulate the thought seem to have an innate understanding that you can’t have personal, individual RIGHTS without ALSO having personal, individual RESPONSIBILITY and there are a lot of people out there in society today who truly don’t want responsibility and seem more than willing to give up whatever rights are necessary to avoid the responsibility.

I would say that the mindset of “wanting to be taken care of” is as much a danger to the Second Amendment as is the mindset that “guns are bad” and should be banned.

Edited June 24, 2010 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You stated the problem in our society, without a doubt. It's that idea that

wanting to be taken care of, that has cost this country so much.

I agree

[G27]

just as the Heller decision allows for 'reasonable restrictions', I imagine that a victory for us will still have similar wording in order to allow things like CA's laws to stand. Chicago's ban would be gone, of course.

Just a gut feeling.

IANAL, so forgive me if I missed something obvious...

[DaveTN]

It will just be a rubberstamp of Heller for the rest of the country.

It was illegal for a citizen to carry a gun in both Tennessee and Illinois before Heller or McDonald, and it will be illegal for a citizen to carry after these decisions. You will have an individual right to own arms; but how and when you carry them will be a state right.

I’m curious as to what kind of entertainment we can expect from Daley if they shoot down the Chicago handgun ban.

[RobD]

I’m curious as to what kind of entertainment we can expect from Daley if they shoot down the Chicago handgun ban.

Would probably just give him his "excuse" to declare martial law in the city and take the guns away.

[StPatrick]

...And all the rumors out of DC indicate that Justice Alito :lol: will be writing the majority opinion.

Three things to take from this:

1. Sam Alito is one of the most doctrinaire strict-constructionalists to ever sit on the court in the "modern" era. This is an indicator that McDonald will incorporate the 2nd amendment to the states; possibly more considering the messenger. How far the decision extends regarding restrictions still remains to be seen, but it will be the precedent that appeals courts must abide by. Any legal actions regarding gun laws will have to be viewed through the prism of the court's decision. The awesomeness potential is very high here.

2. Justice Alito is also a fantastic writer - this won't be a legal document that is awful to read.

3. I guess Anthony Kennedy woke up on our side of the bed this time. Too bad about Kelo...

[JayC]

just as the Heller decision allows for 'reasonable restrictions', I imagine that a victory for us will still have similar wording in order to allow things like CA's laws to stand. Chicago's ban would be gone, of course.

Just a gut feeling.

IANAL, so forgive me if I missed something obvious...

There are 'reasonable restrictions' on other rights... for example a law banning yelling fire in a crowded theater is a reasonable restriction to the first amendment. A law banning the use of the word fire, is not a reasonable restriction.

Banning certain types of firearms is not a 'reasonable restriction'... If you can't ban handguns, you can't ban assault weapons...

It may very well take another lawsuit to get rid of such AWB's but if the 2nd Amendment in incorporated it will be an earth shattering ruling... Because it will be the real start to restoring the 2nd amendment.

I'll point out that there is another case working it's way to SCOTUS by the same plaintiff in the Heller case to openly carry a firearm in DC. A sucessful outcome in that case combined with a successful outcome in this case... means unlicensed open carry everywhere in the country.

BTW, it is a SINGLE attorney spread heading all of these cases, Alan Gura... My bet he's going to win McDonald and this new case in Washington DC - Palmer.

Plaintiff in handgun case is suing D.C. for right carry firearms in public

[JayC]

It will just be a rubberstamp of Heller for the rest of the country.

It was illegal for a citizen to carry a gun in both Tennessee and Illinois before Heller or McDonald, and it will be illegal for a citizen to carry after these decisions. You will have an individual right to own arms; but how and when you carry them will be a state right.

I’m curious as to what kind of entertainment we can expect from Daley if they shoot down the Chicago handgun ban.

I think you're right, Monday will only change who can own firearms in Chicago, NYC and a couple of other places around the country...

But as soon as the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, other cases will be filed all over the country... and those cases will really change the landscape...

And yes Daley's head is going to explode on Monday midday

[RobertNashville]

....

Plaintiff in handgun case is suing D.C. for right carry firearms in public

Thanks for posting that link...great read.

The best line in the entire story is the last paragraph where is says...

"Lowy, the Brady Center lawyer, wants to make it clear that "this case isn't about Mr. Palmer or what anyone thinks of him. If you recognize a constitutional right to carry loaded guns on the streets of Washington, what you're saying is that thousands of people have the right to carry loaded guns."

Palmer (the plaintiff suing for the right to carry in public in DC) couldn't agree more. "

[Guest GT_Rat]

Thanks for posting that link...great read.

The best line in the entire story is the last paragraph where is says...

"Lowy, the Brady Center lawyer, wants to make it clear that "this case isn't about Mr. Palmer or what anyone thinks of him. If you recognize a constitutional right to carry loaded guns on the streets of Washington, what you're saying is that thousands of people have the right to carry loaded guns."

Palmer (the plaintiff suing for the right to carry in public in DC) couldn't agree more. "

Yessir, we agree with that assessment 100%.

[JayC]

I know it's a bank shot instead of a slam dunk... but if the McDonald ruling comes down as expected and the 2nd Amendment is incorporated... And the Palmer case is won... Then some form of carry would be the law of the land.

[DaveTN]

I know it's a bank shot instead of a slam dunk... but if the McDonald ruling comes down as expected and the 2nd Amendment is incorporated... And the Palmer case is won... Then some form of carry would be the law of the land.

It can never be the law of the land…. There are states that will refuse to comply.

The SCOTUS knows that, and that is why they know they are safe in ruling you have a right to own guns; but where and when you can carry them is States Rights.

But hey… maybe I’m wrong. I will be in Illinois on Monday with a bunch on guns. Maybe I’ll

be able to carry.

<O:p</O:p

[Guest Jamie]

It can never be the law of the land…. There are states that will refuse to comply.

The SCOTUS knows that, and that is why they know they are safe in ruling you have a right to own guns; but where and when you can carry them is States Rights.

But hey… maybe I’m wrong. I will be in Illinois on Monday with a bunch on guns. Maybe I’ll

be able to carry.

<o></o>

*sigh* Once more, into the breach...

First off, Dave, you're getting ahead of yourself, and SCOTUS.

The McDonald case isn't about the right to carry. Neither was Heller, for that matter. Heller addressed whether or not the 2nd was an individual right or not. And McDonald is about whether or not the 2nd only applies to the Federal government, or if it applies to State governments as well.

If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd applies to both the Feds AND the State ( incorporation ), then there will have to be a whole 'nother case concerning the issue of exactly what "bear" means, and how much control over that any U.S. government is allowed to have.

So, a positive ruling for gun owners on Monday will not be any kind of grand end to the whole mess, any more than Heller was... It'll only be another step in the right direction. And one of several that will need to be taken to get us - gun owners - back where we think we should be.

As for the whole "Some states won't comply"..... Bulls**t. You seem to be forgetting that there will be MANY people, in ANY state who's government wants to pull that, that simply will not let them get away with it. And they will then have the law on their side to support their position. And though it might take time to get it all worked out, it WILL get worked out.

So while I do agree with you that there may be State governments that don't want to go along with any ruling that comes from SCOTUS that takes away their control of people carrying weapons, in the end I just can't imagine that government succeeding... unless the people of that state want 'em to.

J.