McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[Guest stovepipe]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[Guest jackdm3]

By NATHAN KOPPEL

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

<CITE>Associated Press</CITE> The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom.

The ruling was 5-4 along the court's usual conservative-liberal split. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

The court in 2008 voided a District of Columbia handgun ban, and Monday's ruling extended that to the rest of the country. Because Washington is federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on gun laws adopted by states had been unclear.

More

• Supreme Court Won't Consider Tobacco Case
  
• Political Theater at Kagan Hearings
  

The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.

Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge.

On the Docket

Review the cases already decided and still to come in the Supreme Court's 2009-2010 term, plus details on the arguments, the court's calendar, and the justices themselves.

• More photos and interactive graphics
  

"It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," wrote Justice Alito in his majority opinion.

Two years ago, after the court voted 5-4 along its conservative-liberal split to strike down the Washington ordinance, gun-rights forces filed suit against weapons laws around the country. The case decided Monday involved a challenge to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

<!-- lib_json_commons.ftl -->

News Hub: High Court Rules on Sarb-Ox and Guns

<SMALL>3:28</SMALL> Ashby Jones discusses the Supreme Court's likely release this week of key rulings on patents, Sarbanes-Oxley and Gun Control.

At arguments in March, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the dissenters Monday, said gun possession was different in nature from the other rights described in the Constitution.

When state or local lawmakers enact gun regulations, they do so aiming to protect public safety, he said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested during the March arguments that Chicago's fears of unleashing an arsenal on city streets were overblown, observing that even when the court has recognized a right, "the states have substantial latitude...to impose reasonable regulations."

There's a poll at Marketwatch.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html?mod=mktw

Edited June 28, 2010 by jackdm3

[Mike.357]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges. The ruling involved a 28-year-old handgun ban in the Chicago area.

The ruling was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the politically powerful National Rifle Association.

It was a defeat for Chicago, which defended its ban as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. The law and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Ill., were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Supreme Court extends gun rights - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

I bet Daley is plotting how to ignore it

[Guest SUNTZU]

But not by some.

I'm bettin' Sarah Brady and a bunch'a others just themselves.

Oh, and the "Reversed and Remanded" means that the 7th circuit court now gets to blow Chicago's gun ban to hell.

J.

[Mike.357]

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ...

Share |

... if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional. That process would take "days," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned Chicago's gun ban. More on Chicago Breaking News.

Chicago's gun law is a hot-button topic not just in the city, but in the suburbs and nationally, where several advocates for 2nd amendment rights have disputed whether it is even necessary -- many of them in the comments of this blog.

The city seems unmoved by those arguments. Earlier, city officials told the Tribune they were considering gun laws from California and Washington D.C. in the event Chicago's current law is struck down.

Trib Nation earlier invited readers to vote among the gun law options the city was considering. You can vote, too, after the jump:

These are among the replacement laws the city of Chicago says it is considering. Vote for up to five. You'll notice "none of the above" is not an option Chicago is considering. If you think they should -- or if there are other measures you'd suggest -- leave them in the comments below. Thank you.

( there is a poll at the url, of course there is not one option I would vote for)

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ... - Trib Nation

[Guest PapaB]

Here's a link to the decision directly from the Supreme Court website, it's 214 pages long.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

I guess I'll be reading for a while.

This time next year we may be watching again, depending on how Illinois and California handle this decision. I dout that they'll handle it well.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Brady campaign is already crying.

Edited June 28, 2010 by SUNTZU

[ttocswob]

But <acronym title="National Rifle Association">NRA</acronym> will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.

This of course is the right to keep arms. Nothing is said about the right to bear arms. Good ol' NRA...

Logically, the courts cannot allow one and infringe the other. Unfortunately the supremes are just one heartbeat away from defying all logic...

[Guest jackdm3]

Hey Sun, pics?

[Mike.357]

great news for people who support the constitution.

[Magiccarpetrides]

*HIP HIP HOORAY!*

Finally.....

I also like how they refused to hear the Obama vs. Big Tobacco case.....im not a smoker but what they are doing to the tobacco companies is really rediculous....what ever happened to free enterprise, capitalism, and free choice.....but I digress....

[DaveTN]

As expected… now comes the entertainment. Daley isn’t done yet.

He is already suggesting licensing, training and additional insurance requirements for gun owners.

As with Heller the SCOTUS left the door open for state regulation of firearms laws. From what he is suggesting it will be like Tennessee only at higher costs; those that can afford to play the game will be okay, those that can’t will be criminals.

Knowing Daley very well, I won’t be calling this a win until all Chicago citizens can legally own handguns.

[mikegideon]

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ...

Share |

... if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional. That process would take "days," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned Chicago's gun ban. More on Chicago Breaking News.

Chicago's gun law is a hot-button topic not just in the city, but in the suburbs and nationally, where several advocates for 2nd amendment rights have disputed whether it is even necessary -- many of them in the comments of this blog.

The city seems unmoved by those arguments. Earlier, city officials told the Tribune they were considering gun laws from California and Washington D.C. in the event Chicago's current law is struck down.

Trib Nation earlier invited readers to vote among the gun law options the city was considering. You can vote, too, after the jump:

These are among the replacement laws the city of Chicago says it is considering. Vote for up to five. You'll notice "none of the above" is not an option Chicago is considering. If you think they should -- or if there are other measures you'd suggest -- leave them in the comments below. Thank you.

( there is a poll at the url, of course there is not one option I would vote for)

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ... - Trib Nation

I just emailed their CEO about the "none of the above" option. I'm anxious to hear his response. He's not a grabber.

[raydog1]

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ...

Share |

... if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional. That process would take "days," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned Chicago's gun ban. More on Chicago Breaking News.

Chicago's gun law is a hot-button topic not just in the city, but in the suburbs and nationally, where several advocates for 2nd amendment rights have disputed whether it is even necessary -- many of them in the comments of this blog.

The city seems unmoved by those arguments. Earlier, city officials told the Tribune they were considering gun laws from California and Washington D.C. in the event Chicago's current law is struck down.

Trib Nation earlier invited readers to vote among the gun law options the city was considering. You can vote, too, after the jump:

These are among the replacement laws the city of Chicago says it is considering. Vote for up to five. You'll notice "none of the above" is not an option Chicago is considering. If you think they should -- or if there are other measures you'd suggest -- leave them in the comments below. Thank you.

( there is a poll at the url, of course there is not one option I would vote for)

Chicago gun ban would be replaced, the city says ... - Trib Nation

I think that may win the prize for Most Ridiculous Poll Ever. Failure on so many levels.

[Guest PapaB]

Here's a great quote from the opinion.

Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents"from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms." See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of theCity Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago petitioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

<SUP>

The anti-gun crowd will hate that SCOTUS mentions that crime increased when guns were banned, straight from the statistics of the Chicago Police Department. </SUP>

[Murgatroy]

Gun rights: Supreme Court strikes down ban on handguns - latimes.com

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago's ban on handguns Monday and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe on the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.

The ruling has both local and national implications.

Way to go!

[raydog1]

Brady campaign is already crying.

"We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail." - Wow! And I thought we've been putting some in the WIN column lately.

[raydog1]

*HIP HIP HOORAY!*

Finally.....

I also like how they refused to hear the Obama vs. Big Tobacco case.....im not a smoker but what they are doing to the tobacco companies is really rediculous....what ever happened to free enterprise, capitalism, and free choice.....but I digress....

Calling them out during the last state of the union address was unwise.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Calling them out during the last state of the union address was unwise.

[raydog1]

The goodness starts early in the opinion-P. 19:

With this framework in mind, we now turn directly tothe question whether the Second Amendment right tokeep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's his-tory and tradition," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the an-swer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554

U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"). Explain-ing that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (someinternal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose" ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) ("[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon"). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

[Harold]

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights « Liveshots

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Calling them out during the last state of the union address was unwise.

Yes, it was unwise, and I expect Obama will try it again, like FDR bullying SCOTUS.

That was the right decision and I'm glad this part is over. Next question should be opening

the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment to all lawful citizens, and that, to me, is the

neutering of the BATFE. It serves no lawful purpose to restrict ownership of the classes

of firearms they restrict, by way of taxes and harassment by time and paperwork.

That's not written anywhere in the Constitution, either.

These cases need to be pursued until they are all gone. The law abiding citizen being

treated like a criminal by it's government doesn't cut it any more.

[Daniel]

I am getting tired of merging these threads.

[Mike.357]

gun ownership will be legal in places like Chicago. I fully expect the hoops to be jumped through and the taxes and fees associated with it will be a defacto handgun ban to people who do not have large amounts of disposable cash.

Criminals will still have their sources for guns. So what was really accomplished by this decision?

[Mike.357]

I am getting tired of merging these threads.

I was unsure where to put it, I figured correctly that if I did it wrong someone would fix it for me.

Thanks