Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

Batboy does not yet have a link, but Batboy understands that in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has found in favor of the McDonald plaintiffs. Batboy is attempting to obtain a copy of the opinion.

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

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.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

Re: High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

FUCK YOU MAYOR ASSHAT DALEY.

Link

Daley, you're a douchebag.

Was is it bad for there to be a handgun registry?

Re: High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

So maybe the more informed here on WF can clarify what this means to those of us in say Pennsylvania?

Does this mean the door has been opened a little wider now on a state by state basis to challenge our existing state laws regarding CCW permits?

Threads merged.

I don't believe this will have any immediate affect on Handgun Carry Permits. This ruling recognizes the right we have always had to posses guns for self-defense. It doesn't open up the ability to challenge CCW permits in any way, as far as I can tell.

The next step is to challenge things like New York City's laws which, while technically allowing handgun ownership, make it virtually impossible to do so. You have to hit things in order.

One thing that I would love to see is a ruling requiring states to recognize the handgun carry permits of other states. We have this thing in Article IV, Section I of the constitution that says:

I don't disagree with having a registration process. In fact a basic registration process would help PD etc.

However, here's what will happen. Mayor fruitcake and his butt budies will pass a law making it so hard to "legally" own a handgun that the 10's of thousands who already do will just ignore the new law like they did the old one. Thus PD will be worse off than if Dumbo passed a simple easy registration law.

Full Opinion

Just skimmed, but an interesting read. Would be more comfortable if the majority were in agreement as to the basis for incorporation.

Edit to add: If the P&I Clause is back in play...fun times ahead!

I assume you think the same recognition should be extended to marriages that your particular state may not currently recognize.

Also from what I know of US law this seems like the right decision, the obsession many Americans have with guns is a little peculiar but the right to have them is right there in the constitution. I do look forward to Muad Dib's disagreement with the Supreme Courts ruling in this case though.

My state has to recognize marriages other states do. That's the law, and that is why folks go to other states.

Way to really rabbit trail though. That part of your post made you look like a tool.

Only an idiot states the obvious.

So, to sum up, your post was an entirely worthless attempt at trolling that ended up a failure.

From The Knox County Website:

It can't be that obvious if it only passed in a 5-4 ruling.

OK, so? You apparently don't understand what you posted. I'll break it down using an example.

I had a friend from MN who got married in Virginia. In order to get married in Virginia, he had to get a Virginia marriage license. The main officiant of the ceremony was from MN, and not licensed to Wed in Virginia. They had a minister from Virginia stand in on the ceremony.

So, he got his VA marriage license, his VA "marryer," and got married. MN then recognized his marriage.

However, had he tried to get married in MN with a VA license, they would not have accepted that.

Do you understand now?

OK, whatever you say bud.

AFAIK that means to get married in Ten you cannot have an out of state license. It has no bearing on Ten recognizing a couple who were already married in another state. Nice try though.

I was gone to get some lunch but I would've said this would be the first kind of argument made.

It's a good point, though. Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be nationwide. Marriage, not having a specific amendment backing it, is slightly more difficult, IMO, than guns. If anything, this should be rather easy for the pro-gun lobby to get moving on.

The obvious thing is that SCOTUS is too political. Always has been but that's the nature of the beast.

No doubt. Anyone who says SCOTUS isn't political deceives themselves, and the truth is not in them.

Which is exactly the point I was making to Apostle, that things are not always as obvious and straightforward as they would seem. Under the section of the US Constitution he quoted it seems obvious that a homosexual married couple from Massachusetts would be entitled to have their marriage recognized if they moved to Apostles neck of the woods, however I suspect he would not immediately support that right.

The point is not to try and turn this thread into a troll/debate on homosexual rights, and I will not go down that path any further. It was just an easy example of another well publicized "Full Faith and Credit" issue.

Today will be a day long remembered. It has seen the death of the Chicago nannies, and will soon see the end of the Rebellion.

*Tarkin rolls his eyes...

This is good news for the law abiding citizens living in what has recently become America's most violent city.

So if a homosexual couple were married in MA, TN would recognize it then?

I believe TN would recognize the marriage, but that the state wouldn't be able to handle divorces, etc.

The Constitution is a document written in plain English that should be understandable by any literate person. It is not some arcane recipe that is only interpretable by oracles and priests. It really isn't.

As such, it is highly troubling that the 4 dissenters go to such great lengths to IGNORE the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear." If you can ignore the operative words of a law, then the law is meaningless: black can be interpreted to mean white, white to mean black.

That's why I'm a pretty strict constructionist. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. I don't think there's much room for interpretation in it, particularly not in the Bill of Rights.

And Justice Ginsberg's comment that "other societies have rejected the right to bear arms" is the most disturbing of all. WE ARE NOT "other societies." I'm strongly opposed to normalizing our view of freedom with anyone else's.

On topic: great ruling (though not all it could've been, of course), but we're gonna ride this like a wrecking ball into a lot of other bad gun laws.

^ Good post overall, but that second-to-last paragraph is pure gold!

WOOHOO!

Ask gun owners in California who were told to register their so-called assault rifles, with the assurance that the state would never, ever use that list to confiscate them.

A year later, guess what?

Yup. I would say that not having to declare property to the government falls under the first amendment right to free speech - as well as the fifth amendment and the right to not-self incriminate.

You could almost write a movie about the government "softening" up on guns enough to draw gun owners out. Then, when they're exposed, confiscation.