McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[ttocswob]

Well actually, BATE. Don't forget the explosives.

BATE...that smelly stuff you fish with!

...seems appropriate.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I want to know when SCOTUS is going to deal with the words: "bear" and "infringed". Hopefully we'll still have our 5-4 majority by that time.

Sorry, but what part of Heller did the "Gang of 4" not get this time around? So much for Sotomayor being open minded on the 2A. We'll hear the same drivel from Kagan and see her fall into liberal line after confirmation.

Well, apparently its okay to ban firearms as long as its not "capricious." Registration is okay. Miles of bureaucratic red tape is still okay and will be different everywhere you live. So "shall not be infringed" is a damn hard phrase to wrap their minds around still. This means that individuals everywhere will have to fight against this gun law and that gun law. So the lawyers win...again. REVENUE.

[mikegideon]

BATE...that smelly stuff you fish with!

...seems appropriate.

That's actually BAIT. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? I think we're talkin' that kinda BATE

[Guest SUNTZU]

Editorial - The Court, the Constitution and the Reality of Guns - NYTimes.com

About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody.

This began two years ago, when the Supreme Court disregarded the plain words of the Second Amendment and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, deciding that the amendment gave individuals in the district, not just militias, the right to bear arms. Proceeding from that flawed logic, the court has now said the amendment applies to all states and cities, rendering Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership unenforceable.

Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.

Rather than acknowledging Chicago’s — and the nation’s — need to end an epidemic of gun violence, the justices spent scores of pages in the decision analyzing which legal theory should bind the Second Amendment to the states. Should it be the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, or the amendment’s immunities clause? The argument was not completely settled because there was not a five-vote majority for either path.

The issue is not trivial; had the court backed the immunity-clause path championed by Justice Clarence Thomas, it might have had the beneficial effect of applying more aspects of the Bill of Rights to the states. That could make it easier to require that states, like the federal government, have unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials, for example, or ban excessive fines.

While the court has now twice attacked complete bans on handgun ownership, the decision left plenty of room for restrictions on who can buy and sell arms.

The court acknowledged, as it did in the District of Columbia case, that the amendment did not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” It cited a few examples of what it considered acceptable: limits on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places like schools or government buildings and conditions on gun sales.

Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, close gun-show loopholes.

They should not be intimidated by the theoretical debate that has now concluded at the court or the relentless stream of lawsuits sure to follow from the gun lobby that will undoubtedly keep pressing to overturn any and all restrictions. Officials will have to press back even harder. Too many lives are at stake.

Go ahead and try not to read the comments on that linked article.

[Mike.357]

Go ahead and try not to read the comments on that linked article.

I doubt there is much that would suprise me.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I doubt there is much that would suprise me.

One of the reasons I'm wound tight.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Article from REASON magazine

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities as well as the federal government. Judging from their objections, the four dissenters were still reeling from the Court's landmark 2008 decision recognizing that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.

Likewise, Stevens defends "state and local legislatures' right to experiment," while Breyer is loath to interfere with "the ability of States to reflect local preferences and conditions—both key virtues of federalism." Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce, this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.

Another reason to doubt the dissenters' sincerity: They would never accept federalism as a rationale for letting states "experiment" with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or due process protections. Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding "local preferences" that give short shrift to constitutional rights.

Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because "determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions." So does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence, or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs, or infrared surveillance.

When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for example, they ask whether the challenged law is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest" and is the "least restrictive means" of doing so.

But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says, "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty." How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims."

Every right can be abused, with results that are immoral, illegal, or both. Freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful ideas, promote pernicious political philosophies, slander the innocent, or engage in criminal conspiracies. If there were no potential for harm from exercising a right, there would be no need to protect it, because no one would try to restrict it.

The dissenters' most frivolous objection is that making states obey the Second Amendment "invites an avalanche of litigation," as Stevens puts it. Every day we hear about cases in which people argue that the government has violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth amendment. Neither Stevens nor Breyer wants to stop this "avalanche." Only when the Second Amendment is added to the mix do they recoil in horror at the prospect that Americans will use the courts to vindicate their rights.

Stevens warns that "the practical significance of the proposition that 'the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States' remains to be worked out by this Court over many, many years." But that's because the Court for many, many years ignored the Second Amendment while gradually defining the contours of its neighbors in the Bill of Rights. There is a lot of catching up to do.

Ah, lifetime appointments with that kind of thinking.

[MCSCOTT]

I really wish I hadn't read those comments to see how ignorant people are these days. Alot of folks seem to live in their own little world where nothing bad ever happens, and their mind can never be changed until something does happen to them directly. At that point they can see the need for people to have the means to defend themselves, but until that day comes they use their right to freedom of speech to speak out against their right to keep and bear arms.

Personally I think the Constitution is written so that the people of this country have the power to protect their freedoms and the country. Freedom of speech should be used to help protect the Constitution, the same way the right to keep and bear arms can be used to protect it. Anyone who uses their freedom of speech to try to destroy part of the Constitution is basically attacking this country, and they should ALL be executed. There shouldn't have to be any lawyer fees or court costs, or any costs for that matter, to fight someone that is trying to destroy part of our Constitution because it simply shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[Guest jackdm3]

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

With the way "representatives" votes are bought and sold and otherwise manipulated, sometimes the "will of the people" is lost in translation. Purposely. I want to see a Chicago-wide vote of all residents of the gun issue, and then we'll see who has who's best interests at heart.

Edited June 30, 2010 by jackdm3

[G27]

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

With the way "representatives" votes are bought and sold and otherwise manipulated, sometimes the "will of the people" is lost in translation. Purposely. I want to see a Chicago-wide vote of all residents, and then we'll see who has who's best interests at heart.

Not only that, but what if 51% of the people wish to restrict our other civil rights?

The answer is precisely why we're a republic, not a pure democracy.

The short-sighted nature of a large percentage of people in this country is startling.

[MCSCOTT]

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

With the way "representatives" votes are bought and sold and otherwise manipulated, sometimes the "will of the people" is lost in translation. Purposely. I want to see a Chicago-wide vote of all residents, and then we'll see who has who's best interests at heart.

"The people" should be allowed to implement certain desires through their elected representatives, but not in cases that go against the Constitution. To me it seems like the will of the representatives of certain states are direct threats to the Constition of the country as a whole. The issue of state and city rights vs the Constition is exactly why this country is no longer the "United" States of America.

[Guest jackdm3]

I have to fine tune that by saying "Chicago-wide vote of all residents on the gun issue."

That's probably obvious, right?

[Guest SUNTZU]

I would say that majority rule has no bearing on "shall not be infringed."

[Guest jackdm3]

I'm going by the feeling that most Chicagoans want the possibility to self-protect with guns! They won't get to vote on this, to be sure. But they need their thoughts projected on more than letters-to-the-editor or a bullhorn.

[MCSCOTT]

I would say that majority rule has no bearing on "shall not be infringed."

I agree.

If it is allowed to have a bearing, it could easily lead to the destruction of our Constitution, especially once all the illegal aliens are legalized and allowed to vote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

With the way "representatives" votes are bought and sold and otherwise manipulated, sometimes the "will of the people" is lost in translation. Purposely. I want to see a Chicago-wide vote of all residents of the gun issue, and then we'll see who has who's best interests at heart.

Jack. That's why it's harder to amend the constitution:to prevent mob rule.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

One of the reasons I'm wound tight.

I feel your pain;) and agree.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Go ahead and try not to read the comments on that linked article.

Ya baited me man and I should have known better, I doubt I will ever be able to enjoy leftover pizza again.

Some of those people commenting have a disease for which there is no cure.

The entire article is a stinking piece of . They say "About" 10,000 people died by handgun violence during the four month period, but they sure fail to mention how few of those 10,000 were actually killed by law abiding citizens with guns:rolleyes:.

We know at least a few were thugs killed by good folks and Police Officers but we also know that "about" most;) of them were thugs killing thugs or thugs killing good folks....So in their twisted sick minds the answer is to keep the good folks from having guns.

I do think I am going to be sick, I did know better but I read a little bit of that but just a little bit was far too much.

[eapking]

NY Times writer...I'm sure a shill for Bloomberg.

[Guest jackdm3]

Hadn't seen any updates for a week, so ...

CHICAGO — The Chicago City Council yesterday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people’s hands.

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

The vote comes just four days after the high court ruled Americans have the right to have handguns anywhere for self-defense — a ruling that makes the city’s 28-year-old ban on owning such weapons unenforceable.

“I wish that we weren’t in the position where we’re struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that our Supreme Court has set for us,’’ said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, minutes before the council voted, 45 to 0, to approve the ordinance.

It was swift action for a council that typically takes far longer to pass ordinances, but Mayor Richard Daley clearly wanted to give police a law they could begin enforcing as quickly as possible.

“You have to get the tools to the police,’’ Daley said.

And even though the ban remains in effect until it is struck down by an appellate court, Georges said it was important to pass a new law to clear up confusion Chicagoans might have about what kind of weapons they can legally own and how they can use them.

Some residents applauded the vote.

“There’s just too much killing going on [and] we need protection,’’ said Mary Fitts, a retiree who came from her home on the South Side to watch the vote. “You can’t even sit on your front porch.’’

Others, like Senesceria Craig, wondered how much good it would do. “They’re not going to abide by it,’’ she said of criminals, pointing out that her 20-year-old daughter was killed with a handgun in 1992, 10 years after the city’s ban went into effect.

But gun rights opponents quickly criticized Daley and the City Council and promised lawsuits.

“The city wants to put as many hurdles and as much red tape in the way of someone who just wants to exercise their constitutional right to have a gun,’’ said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association in Illinois.

Vandermyde would not say when lawsuits might be filed. But he said the ordinance would be attacked on a number of fronts — including requiring prospective gun owners to pay $15 for each firearm registered, $100 every three years for a Chicago firearms permit, not to mention the cost of the required training — saying they all add up to discrimination against the poor.

“How are some people in some of the poorer neighborhoods who merely want to have firearms for self-defense supposed to afford to get through all this red tape?’’ he asked.

The ordinance also:

■ Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

■ Requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the Police Department.

■ Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime or domestic violence, or have two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

■ Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.

[mikegideon]

And, back atcha Daley (ya douche)...

NRA-ILA :: NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago's newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court's June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We've gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” -- even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is 'Make Us',” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago's law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

Recent statements from some of Chicago's city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment."

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

[G27]

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

Be interesting to see how long this one takes and what the decision is. Hopefully the lower courts will rule in Benson's favor on this so it gets taken care of 'quickly'...

[mikegideon]

Be interesting to see how long this one takes and what the decision is. Hopefully the lower courts will rule in Benson's favor on this so it gets taken care of 'quickly'...

I'm just glad the NRA is involved. Looks like Daley and his bedwetters tried to use Kalifornia laws as a giggle check. If the individual parts of the ordinance are in place somewhere else, it will be a tougher challenge to prove that they're over the top. Kalifornia has hangun carry, even tho it's BS. Gonna be interesting to watch. Somebody needs to attack Kalifornia law.

[eapking]

Looks like the NRA is aiming at carry in DC next.

I might be totally wrong, but I suspect they want to win on the Federal level first, before trying a State. Kind of like Heller, then McDonald. Again, might be totally wrong, but I wonder if there's an advantage to this approach?

[mikegideon]

Looks like the NRA is aiming at carry in DC next.

I might be totally wrong, but I suspect they want to win on the Federal level first, before trying a State. Kind of like Heller, then McDonald. Again, might be totally wrong, but I wonder if there's an advantage to this approach?

I think they're going to latch onto every opportunity they see. Whichever comes first.