McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[JayC]

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...

I disagree, Heller and McDonald both state keep and bear is included in the right... Palmer v DC the next case (by the same attorney as McDonald) will address the bear part... I suspect SCOTUS will hear that case sometime in the next 2 years.

[Murgatroy]

I am sorry, I didn't realize there was already one going.

[mikegideon]

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.

I'm anxious to hear Obama's response to this. My best guess is total silence.

[Guest SUNTZU]

As seen elsewhere:

I wish they had used Privileges & Immunities rather than Due Process - that is what Gura wanted, but the NRA stole a third of his time to pimp the Due Process argument (which every Constitutional Law scholar sad was a 2 minute argument at best).

So yes - we now have a clear decisions that municipalities cannot blanket ban guns, but being incorporated under Due Process means that States can still create torturous legislation and obstructions as long as they are applied fairly under Due Process. The other argument, Privileges & Immunities, would have meant States could do nothing to restrict the rights granted to you as a Citizen of the United States - just like States cannot restrict Speech or ban a Religion.

[Guest uofmeet]

so, does this now mean i can carry a hand gun in chicago? like right now out in the open? since they over rules their ban, and their is not other law dealing with this in chicago, it is fair game right now? I am not going their, just curious.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

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....

I feel the same way about marijuana, prostitution, and trans fats.

But we digress.

Reading the dissenting opinions, I am simply amazed at how silly and just plain dishonest some of our justices are. Stevens even went so far as to carefully redact a quote from John Locke (of all people!) in his attempt to suggest that the citizenry must give all power of defense of life and limb to the government. As though such a sacrifice of power is requisite to having a "civilized" society. How do some of these people make it through law school and up the legal ladder without being able to reason any better than this? It leads me to believe that they actually know better, and that they are simply that shameless and disingenuous. Just playing out some script that's expected of them.

[raydog1]

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?

Eliminates the ban, but not "every law regulating firearms." From P.40:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ___-___ (slip op., at 54-55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

So the next step is to file suit against unreasonable restrictions that will surely follow this decision as it did in DC.

[Fallguy]

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

Thanks

LOL..I was actually the one that merged the thread you started ....Danile must be catching a bunch more.

[Guest Jamie]

so, does this now mean i can carry a hand gun in chicago? like right now out in the open? since they over rules their ban, and their is not other law dealing with this in chicago, it is fair game right now? I am not going their, just curious.

In a word...no.

As a matter of fact, Chicago's ban hasn't been overturned yet. The the 7th circuit court still has to do that.

And although they will, there's also the matter of the courts working out just how much infringement a government can get away with.

These are all things that have yet to be decided, but now must be decided.

And that is the main strength of the Heller and McDonald rulings, and what they actually accomplish.

J.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm anxious to hear Obama's response to this. My best guess is total silence.

Yep. Probably behind the scenes, like he has done before, on other issues, and included

in vague bills like health care. But I bet he scolds SCOTUS, once again, probably in his

State of the Union after the Kagan confirmation. He enjoyed it last time.

Wait for the "Kill Switch" for the internet, and the beloved "Net Neutrality" bill and

see what you think. There is a left arm working while the right arm is deceiving.

[raydog1]

Yep. Probably behind the scenes, like he has done before, on other issues, and included

in vague bills like health care. But I bet he scolds SCOTUS, once again, probably in his

State of the Union after the Kagan confirmation. He enjoyed it last time.

Wait for the "Kill Switch" for the internet, and the beloved "Net Neutrality" bill and

see what you think. There is a left arm working while the right arm is deceiving.

Or he may do as he did with Heller and act like he was down with the 2nd Amendment all along, lol. Clinging to guns & re-election.

[raydog1]

VPC in serious pain, y'all:

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects."

[LagerHead]

What were the 4 thinking! Really? I guess they don't believe in the US Constitution...that is sad and scary.

Supreme Court justices are as guilty as anyone else of finding ways to interpret the Constitution to fit their beliefs. You probably would not be able to find a right that is clearly outlined in the Constitution that hasn't been trampled on and whose trampling has been supported by the Supreme Court at some time. Anyone who thinks that Supreme Court justices are above political activism is just plain ignorant.

[LagerHead]

VPC in serious pain, y'all:

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects."

This actually made laugh out loud. "America's fading firearms industry"? Apparently fading has a different meaning when you're stupid.

[Guest SUNTZU]

VPC in serious pain, y'all:

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

"People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects."

People WILL die because of this. Hopefully more of the right people will die. Namely, those who've been doing the killing for so long and with so much abandon. The law abiding citizens will soon be armed without fear of repercussion of an authoritative and abusive government (well, that probably won't change much, but in this instance it should be easier).

[Guest TnRebel]

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.

Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C., that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.

In Monday's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.

Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form the majority.

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters.

Edited June 28, 2010 by TnRebel
to add full story

[raydog1]

And I give you. . . Paul Helmke:

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media

Statement of Paul Helmke on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Jun 28, 2010

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.

"We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its `any gun, for anybody, anywhere' agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.

"Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws."

###

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

[mikegideon]

Yep. Probably behind the scenes, like he has done before, on other issues, and included

in vague bills like health care. But I bet he scolds SCOTUS, once again, probably in his

State of the Union after the Kagan confirmation. He enjoyed it last time.

Wait for the "Kill Switch" for the internet, and the beloved "Net Neutrality" bill and

see what you think. There is a left arm working while the right arm is deceiving.

Scolding SCOTUS went over like a lead baloon, and was a lot closer to his real agenda. Not sure he's dumb enough to make that mistake again, especially with his hands off policy on guns (so far).

The "Kill Switch"... just because the right is there doesn't mean it WILL be abused. You ain't goin' all Lib on me, are you? Misusing that kill switch would get him fired. You don't have to take HIS guns away. Seriously, cybeterrorism could be the real trigger for the SHTF scenario we all fear.

[Raoul]

Would I be wrong in assuming this is also a pro states-rights ruling also?

[mikegideon]

This actually made laugh out loud. "America's fading firearms industry"? Apparently fading has a different meaning when you're stupid.

I caught that too. We already know they're working on bad numbers. Watching all the whining may be the best part

[Guest Jamie]

And I give you. . . Paul Helmke:

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media

Statement of Paul Helmke on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Jun 28, 2010

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement: "Blather blather blather blather and blather some more. Cry some, continue to blather. "

Well, it's not like we expected 'em to come to their senses, give and go home....

J.

[DMark]

Reckon the 4 dissenters really don't understand the term, "Right of The People"

Think about it, the liberals were just one vote away from ending a natural right.

[raydog1]

Helmke's always good at making lemonade out of lemons.

[Guest Jamie]

Helmke's always good at making lemonade out of lemons.

Yeah, but he's got to be running low on sugar and water by now.

J.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Scolding SCOTUS went over like a lead baloon, and was a lot closer to his real agenda. Not sure he's dumb enough to make that mistake again, especially with his hands off policy on guns (so far).

The "Kill Switch"... just because the right is there doesn't mean it WILL be abused. You ain't goin' all Lib on me, are you? Misusing that kill switch would get him fired. You don't have to take HIS guns away. Seriously, cybeterrorism could be the real trigger for the SHTF scenario we all fear.

Well, taking over car companies and insurance companies didn't get him fired, especially

since he was way unconstitutional in those acts. Why would you trust him with anything

else? And that oil spill is going great with his leadership. Bobby Jindal will need a big box of Tide

when he cleans himself up, much less the shoreline. I wouldn't trust Obama with a cheeseburger.

They need to be giving the prez less authority. He can't handle any but, he's a heck of a community

organizer.