McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)

[Nullifidian]

I apologize ahead of time because this is a sidetrack...


Why do so many people say "bare" when they mean "bear"?

The 2A says nothing about going sleeveless, folks. The correct word is "bear."


Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine.

[t1m0thy]

Just sent this off to the local paper:

Reasonable Restrictions

Monday the Supreme Court ruled against the gun ban in the city of Chicago and declared the right to keep and bear arms for self defense an individual right incorporating the 2nd amendment under the 14th amendment as a protected right. In spite of this ruling and the victory of gun rights activists in the Heller case two years ago, anti-gun politicians continue to seek ways to circumvent our laws and our Constitution to prevent the average citizen from exercising their second amendment rights.

Since the ruling in the Heller case two years ago, Washington D.C. officials have worked very hard to make it as difficult as possible to own a gun. To purchase a gun you must be subject to all kinds of restrictions like fingerprinting, training courses, and even then there are restrictions on the types of guns you can buy. It is clear their intent is not to obey the spirit of the law but seek every avenue possible to enact a defacto ban.

Mayor Daley of Chicago announced in a press release his intent to enact similar measures like those in D.C. to prevent individuals from purchasing firearms. Meanwhile, while crime runs rampant and men like Mr. McDonald seek only the most basic right to defend themselves in a city where the Mayor and the police are unable to do so they are condemned and criminalized themselves. The actions and statements of Daley show not an intent to follow or respect our rule of law but rather a defiance and a refusal to acknowledge a protected right and actively pursue policies to violate that right and deny law abiding citizens their natural and essential liberty to defend themselves.

In his dissenting opinion Justice Stevens stated the following:

“The practical impact of various gun-control measures may be highly controversial, but this basic insight should not be. The idea that deadly weapons pose a distinctive threat to the social order—and that reasonable restrictions on their usage therefore impose an acceptable burden on one’s personal liberty—is as old as the Republic.“

So, what is a reasonable restriction then? Is it limiting the ability for the average person to purchase a firearm so severely that it makes the prospect of ownership so daunting that people refrain from even bothering? Is it making gun ownership prohibitive through costs and fees so that it becomes more and more difficult for those with limited resources to retain their right to keep and bear arms? It seems to me like Justice Stevens and many of those who agree with his position are trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth paying lip service to the 2nd amendment while encouraging policies that would make it impossible for most of us to exercise that liberty.

[ChamberedRound]

Laws are not retroactive. However a court ruling that entirely invalidates a law says the law itself was NEVER valid.

The McDonald ruling didn't invalidate any law. It reversed the decision of a lower court, and remanded the case to that court. In reversing, the SCotUS opinion did make the claim that such a ban was unconstitutional, but it didn't invalidate the law itself.

The Judiciary doesn't have the authority to CHANGE law, they can only INTERPRET law. They can interpret law as invalid, but only on a case-by-case basis (this is why having standing to challenge a law is important, it's what gives the Judiciary the authority to act). This could become an exercise in futility if the legislative branches of lower levels of government don't respect the rule of law. Either that, or lower courts will be extremely busy dismissing and/or overturning the same type of cases repeatedly.

That's different from writing a new law or removing a law from the books at a later date. The SCOTUS ruling basically said the Chicago ban is unconstitutional and thus not valid.

Again, they interpreted the 2A and the 14A as it pertained to the particular's of McDonald and the Chicago ban. I don't believe their decision commented about any other cases of abuse under the ban. I guess it could be possible for others who were affected by the same ban in Chicago to either ask the DA to file charges against the government, or to file civil suits, either individual or class action lawsuit. But in either of those cases I wouldn't hold your breath. And while this ruling can be used as precedent against other laws across the land, those other laws aren't instantly nullified by this ruling; petitioners would have to file separate challenges to lower courts and have their particular cases heard.

[mrjam2jab]

NJ's thoughts

nj.com
N.J. may see lawsuits against gun control laws after U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Published: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 7:37 AM Updated: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:13 PM
Rohan Mascarenhas/The Star-Ledger Rohan Mascarenhas/The Star-Ledger
supreme-court-second-amendment.JPGBrendan Hoffman/Getty ImagesPeople wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court before the announcement of a ruling in a case seeking to overturn Chicago's ban on handguns on June 28.

TRENTON — New Jersey’s gun laws, among the nation’s toughest, will most likely face an avalanche of lawsuits in light of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, as activists test the statutes’ constitutional mettle, experts said.

The Supreme Court case, McDonald v. Chicago, found individuals have a right to possess a handgun in their home for self-defense, but it also dismissed "doomsday proclamations" that its finding would strike down all local firearms regulations.

"The devil is in the details," said Earl Maltz, a professor at Rutgers-Camden. "You’re going to have a series of cases that talk about what’s a reasonable restriction and what’s not."

New Jersey’s extensive gun statutes may become ground zero in the coming litigation battles, said John Vincent Saykanic, a criminal defense attorney. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control group, ranked the state’s laws as the second strongest in the country after California’s.
More coverage:

• N.J. top cops call for tougher gun laws

• Corzine calls for tougher gun control laws

• Second Amendment ruling sparks debate on NJ gun laws

• Supreme Court case goes to heart of gun-control debate

New Jersey’s gun statutes require a person to obtain a police-issued permit for each handgun purchased. Permit applications also require a series of state and federal background checks, including fingerprinting. There are also limits on semi-automatic weapons.

Bryan Miller, project director for Ceasefire NJ, said he was confident local laws would withstand judicial review.

"I don’t think this will have any effect on New Jersey’s laws," he said. "The court clearly said that state and local authorities have the ability to regulate guns, which is what we do here."

But the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, a gun-rights organization, hailed the court decision.

"The Garden State’s notoriously bad gun laws — which turn honest citizens into criminals yet fail to punish violent criminal behaviors — are certain to be tested," said Scott Bach, the group’s president.

WHAT THE RULING DOES

• The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, now applies to state and local gun statutes.
• Federal courts will hear lawsuits testing the validity of gun control laws around the country.
• Individuals have a right to "possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense."

WHAT THE RULING DOES NOT DO
• Strike down the following gun control laws:
• Prohibitions on felons and mentally ill possessing firearms
• Statutes that forbid carrying firearms in sensitive places, like schools and government buildings
• Restrictions on the commercial sale of arms.

The state Attorney General’s office has begun a review of the ruling, a spokesman said.

Since the Supreme Court case dealt specifically with Chicago’s handgun ban, activists said New Jersey’s so-called one-handgun-a-month law will likely be the first in legal crosshairs.

The law, approved last year, prohibits individuals from buying more than one handgun every 30 days. It includes exemptions for recreational purposes and gun collectors.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, who supported the law’s passage, argued it did not violate the Supreme Court ruling.

"The laws that were in place in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., were struck down because they were an outright ban on anyone having a handgun, even in their own home," he said in an e-mail. "Our laws do not prohibit a person from having a handgun."

But others were not so sure.

"(The law) doesn’t take away your right to bear arms, so in that sense, it may be upheld," said Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers-Camden. "But on the other hand, if you had a law that said you could only write one editorial a month, you’d run into trouble."

© 2010 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

[Kratos]

"(The law) doesn’t take away your right to bear arms, so in that sense, it may be upheld," said Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers-Camden. "But on the other hand, if you had a law that said you could only write one editorial a month, you’d run into trouble."

Good point.


I don't know why going after the one gun a month limit is listed as a high priority. I'd be far more interested in seeing a case test the limits of sensitive areas. Whats more important for your safety and your sense of freedom, being able to purchase as many handguns as you would like, or being able to protect yourself outside of your home?

I can't believe such a case would not make more headway then any other 2nd amendment related case. In America, we have the right to travel(not drive) With the 2nd now incorporated, I can't see how this supreme court could not rule, at the very least, that every American has the right to bear arms while traveling from their home to any non sensitive destination.

[rikilii]

Who will determine what "reasonable" means? All they did was create more questions and instability with that last statement.

Determining what is "reasonable" is something that judges and juries do every day. A great many of our laws are based on what is "reasonable".

One thing is sure: this will lead to tons of litigation and there will have to be a great many court decisions, including possibly some more S.Ct. decisions, before we have a good idea of the landscape of what is considered reasonable or not.

The thing I'm most interested in seeing is whether an outright bans on the right to carry (or any thing close to an outright ban) will survive.

[tsafa]

Having followed a few Supreme Court rulings lately, it is disappointing to see that the judges are pretty much voting down their own party lines. While it has helped up in Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court's decision should have been all in favor of gun rights given there is ample evidence as to what the Founding Fathers intended in this particular case. I have less confidence of their impartiality in other cases where the Founding Fathers did not give us such ample evidence as to what the intended.

Sonia Sotomayor was asked at her congressional hearing if she believed that the Second Amendment was an individual right and she said "YES". How could she then vote against McDonald and not be branded an obvious fraud.

[BSH]

Sotomayor stated that the RKBA is not an individual right. That clashes with her testimony, under oath, that it was when she was being confirmed.

Don't know if that holds anything for us... but duly noted in my book.

I was thinking the same thing. Now that she's on the bench, the lies of her testimony during Senate review are exposed. Does this mean she perjured herself in Congress? Could the Senate (if it had a Republican majority) call her back and censure her for contempt of Congress?

[Nullifidian]

I was thinking the same thing. Now that she's on the bench, the lies of her testimony during Senate review are exposed. Does this mean she perjured herself in Congress? Could the Senate (if it had a Republican majority) call her back and censure her for contempt of Congress?

She could simply say she changed her mind. They are allowed to do that.

[whoshisface]

Several cases have been ruled that we have the right to travel even by motor coach. So yes driving is a right that we've been brainwashed into believing is a priviledge.

Good point.


I don't know why going after the one gun a month limit is listed as a high priority. I'd be far more interested in seeing a case test the limits of sensitive areas. Whats more important for your safety and your sense of freedom, being able to purchase as many handguns as you would like, or being able to protect yourself outside of your home?

I can't believe such a case would not make more headway then any other 2nd amendment related case. In America, we have the right to travel(not drive) With the 2nd now incorporated, I can't see how this supreme court could not rule, at the very least, that every American has the right to bear arms while traveling from their home to any non sensitive destination.