McDonald v. City of Chicago

[ZachS]

The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 along predictable lines that the 14th Amendment incorporates 2nd Amendment rights (as defined in Heller) against the states.

Good news.

Edit: Complete decision here

Read More

 

[Stomper]

Now we'll get to watch the thug-politicians in the 2nd city pull legislative stunts that will place a LOT of hurdles in front of the folks to jump over to "legally" own a firearm, like the punk-politicians in DC did after the Heller decision.


They just REFUSE to get it through their heads, don't they? :angry:

 

[Jamie6.5]

Whew! Great news.
Too bad it was (again) a 5-4 split, along the lines of political allegiance.

In these scary(iest of) times, that's just a little too close for me. In light of Heller, I would've thought political allegiances would have been side stepped by at least one more. She did state in the confirmation hearings that Heller was "settled law."

At least it went the way gun owners want. For now.

Thanks George, you did a couple things right anyway.

Like Stomper said though, we'll see how long it takes Chicago to place as many restrictions as possible around it. They are probably meeting as I type.

 

[Trlsmn]

King Daley II won't let a little thing like a supreme court ruling have any effect on the status quo!

 

[8ball]

This is GREAT NEWS!



Up next - striking down the WA SBR and suppressor bans!

 

[Karma]

I am very troubled that it again was a 5-4 vote. If that balance of power changes, our country is in for some even bigger problems. My hope is that the conservative justices stay healthy and on the bench longer than the messiah stays in power.

 

[chemist]

I am very troubled that it again was a 5-4 vote. If that balance of power changes, our country is in for some even bigger problems. My hope is that the conservative justices stay healthy and on the bench longer than the messiah stays in power.

About time! After Heller it seemed like a foregone conclusion, and the only real issue was the glacial pace of the review.

It's a big decision, so it's likely that the Court won't hear any similar challenges to 2A, even with a change in the Justices.

That is, even if the makeup of the Court changes, they generally have to voice some overriding reason to revisit an earlier decision by their peers.

 

[Chee-to]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...r-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Daley has scheduled a news conference for 1 p.m. today to discuss the ruling. The City Council could consider new gun control measures as soon as Wednesday, Daley said last week.

City Hall has been drawing up plans after the justices heard arguments in the case in early March and appeared to indicate they would rule against the city.

In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.

"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."

 

[chris61182]

So is the next step to go after registration on 5th amendment grounds? Obviously not OR and WA, but elsewhere.

 

[DERGLOCKINMEISTER]

It bothers me that 4 Justices found it acceptable to vote AGAINST the second amendment ! What an egotistical group ! They are basically saying that their opinion is somehow more
valid than the writers of the amendment to our constitution . At least reason prevailed with the majority . It will be interesting to watch the gymnastics that daly and his ilk go through trying to mess with the ruling and it's result .

 

[Bazooka Joe]

It bothers me that 4 Justices found it acceptable to vote AGAINST the second amendment ! What an egotistical group ! They are basically saying that their opinion is somehow more
valid than the writers of the amendment to our constitution . .

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view... Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ lives at risk.... And the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation. -- Justice Breyer's dissent

Don't you see?! Carrying arms is dangerous! They just want to protect you!

 

[Cougfan2]

It bothers me that 4 Justices found it acceptable to vote AGAINST the second amendment ! What an egotistical group ! They are basically saying that their opinion is somehow more
valid than the writers of the amendment to our constitution . At least reason prevailed with the majority . It will be interesting to watch the gymnastics that daly and his ilk go through trying to mess with the ruling and it's result .

My boss had a little different take on it. He said, "What gives ANY nine people the right to determine whether I can employ the best means available to me to protect myself and my family.".

 

[Karma]

About time! After Heller it seemed like a foregone conclusion, and the only real issue was the glacial pace of the review.

It's a big decision, so it's likely that the Court won't hear any similar challenges to 2A, even with a change in the Justices.

That is, even if the makeup of the Court changes, they generally have to voice some overriding reason to revisit an earlier decision by their peers.

I am sure you are right.My thought is that the Supreme Court will soon be asked to clarify some things regarding the Second Amendment and these cases. What is the line in the sand when it comes to cities or states passing "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. Let me clarify that I do not believe on restrictions on firearms to legal owners, but it has been said that the court does. For example, can a city like Beaverton forbid open carry? Is that a violation, or is it a reasonable restriction? Can California have the restrictions on gun ownership that they have enforced for years?

There are many firearms laws in place across the country. I would imagine that many challenges will arise because of this decision. I don't think it will be long before another 2nd Amendment case makes it's way up to the Supreme Court. Just my thoughts. I may be wrong.

 

[ZachS]

I am sure you are right.My thought is that the Supreme Court will soon be asked to clarify some things regarding the Second Amendment and these cases. What is the line in the sand when it comes to cities or states passing "reasonable restrictions" on firearms. Let me clarify that I do not believe on restrictions on firearms to legal owners, but it has been said that the court does. For example, can a city like Beaverton forbid open carry? Is that a violation, or is it a reasonable restriction? Can California have the restrictions on gun ownership that they have enforced for years?

There are many firearms laws in place across the country. I would imagine that many challenges will arise because of this decision. I don't think it will be long before another 2nd Amendment case makes it's way up to the Supreme Court. Just my thoughts. I may be wrong.

It's unlikely that McDonald will make a difference in states like Oregon and Washington. The decision was narrowly written and focused on in-home self-defense. Not only that, the law allows substantial restrictions on pretty much every constitutional right except for freedom of religion and freedom from racial discrimination. McDonald puts the Second Amendment in the same basic classification as most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, and some level of government regulation will be permitted - including, I suspect, registration.

Most legal scholars believe that this decision won't lead to any major changes in gun rights outside of places like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc. Those areas will wind up with more rights, but most other places will keep the status quo.

 

[Artilleryman]

Congratulations to America on this decision!

 

[Hawaiian]

The Decision simply said that Heller not only applies to DC, but the the states as well. It left open the door for unreasonable restrictions. These will have to work their own way through the courts and will take many years.

This Decision does not really affect any of the north west states.

 

[Artilleryman]

I don't agree. I see this decision as a very positive step that strenghthens the 2nd Amendment. Yes, daly & others like him will pull every stunt they can think of to tap dance around it- but now they'll have to try that much harder with narrowing chances of success. Definitely preferable to the decision having gone the other way.

 

[chris61182]

The thing I don't get is the three justices who thought Cruikshank was still good law. Do they also think that the first amendment shouldn't have been incorporated either?

 

[bugeye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What we have here with this decision is an abridgement of the 9th amendment resulting in yet another increase in federal powers not granted by the contitution - or by the bill or rights. The 9th has been abused more than any other amendment, it is the amendment we never seem to consider. The 9th was put in (shorthand) to limit an increase in federal powers based on the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution (you do know the bill of rights was argued about don't you?). The intrepretation has been that the bill of rights was not an assurance of rights to the people but an assurance that the federal government would never take away these rights, and was put in as a check and balance to the anti federalists. The bill of rights has been used before as a lever to increase federal power as in civil rights issues, where federal power and legal decisions were used to change the way of life in some areas, so lets no make this weedling a left or right issue, but instead see it for what it is, politics at the supreme court.

The Wikki article is very good but hard to read, the arcane language, brevity, and perhaps intentional lack of clarity of the amendments is hard to get.

The 2nd gets another gold star and the 9th gets kicked once again.

 

[chris61182]

I think I may regret this, I can see how the concept of incorporation is damaging to the 9th, but, more specifically to the 2nd and this case, how does acknowledging a right which is enumerated have any impact on those not enumerated?