The McDonald Decision

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
In approximately 40 or so minutes, the decision will be published.

For a live account as it happens, go here.

Additionally, the SCOTUSBlog will have a scholarly debate on the meaning of the decision. Read it here.
In anticipation of tomorrow’s decision in the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUSblog is setting up an expert debate on the issue. We have asked scholars and lawyers with expertise on either the Second Amendment or gun control laws to briefly analyze the opinion, with a focus on its implications for gun control and legal questions left open. These commentators come from both sides of the case, if they have taken sides at all. We expect to start getting submissions soon after the opinion is handed down, and we will post them as soon as we get them.

We are still reaching out to contributors and expect more by tomorrow. All the McDonald posts will be available together in a special section on the lower sidebar.
Click to expand...
 
Here's what I got from SCOTUSblog before it essentially shut down from the traffic:

10:04

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Erin
10:04

Tom:
Gun rights prevail
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Tom
10:05

Erin:

The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
5-4
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:05

Erin:
Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:06

Erin:
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
 
ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and
III–B, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ.,
joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which
ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., join. SCALIA, J., filed a
concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and SO-
TOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
Click to expand...

Glad I voted for Bush.
 
It will be most interesting to see what Chicago does now that their handgun ban has been overturned. Dailey has indicated, prior to the decision, that he would do what he had to to keep the ban in force.
 
Daley can try, but he'll likely get hammered with dozens, if not hundreds, of individual lawsuits that will bleed Chicago even dryer.

Surprising how the court vote split out, isn't it?

Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers. :rolleyes:
 
Anyone see Helmke's quote on the Brady Campaign webpage?

“We can expect two things as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v the City of Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail.”

Gotta give Brady people credit... They certainly have wonderful imaginations when it comes to what is actually happening nationwide...
 
After the decision on Heller vs DC, I'm surprised that this decision fell 5-4 as well.

I'm sure the Brady Campaign anticipated this result and as mentioned, will clearly try to spin it in their own best interest.
 
I want the NRA and other gun-rights groups to come into Illinois with hordes of lawyers and fight for concealed carry. If this isn't the time, there will never be a time ...
 
“We can expect two things as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v the City of Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail.”
Click to expand...

Did the brady campaign hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, AKA Baghdad Bob, to write their press statements because that sound a lot like:

"There are no American Troops in the city ad we will drive the americans to the sea."
 
Justice Thomas got it right and Kagen will be a piece O' krap - she is anti gun and ................ I think the Brady idiots are probably right and all the stupid laws like the restrictions here in Kalifornia will be upheld as reasonable restrictions. Hope I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm only up to page 21, but Alito has ripped Chicago & Oak Park a new butthole that begins at the heels and goes to the crown of the head.

Applies the 1866 Freedmans Act and as I see it creates a "protected class" of gun owners. Maybe not as protected as race, sex, etc. but certainly more protected than automobile owners.

Alito notes several times that self defense "in the home" was NOT the limit of Heller - merely the paramount place of exercise of the right. I'm thinking this is in fact clarification of Heller - in which case DC will be collectively ****ting its pants as they tear out their hair.

I've got to read it over again with a note pad at hand, and then do some cross-checking, but my impression is that McDonald is a bigger win than we had any right to expect. With the majority split between due process and privileges it could mean that eventually both will come into play. I'm happy with due process but would really have liked to see privileges prevail.

Best of all - actually 2 bests of all 1) Slaughterhouse does not apply, and 2) Cruickshank and Miller are essentially removed from stare decis. Hooray!

stay safe.
 
whoooo hooo!!

sqmigx.gif
 
Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to dis-band and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of thesemilitias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen, supra, 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimatelydecided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members.
Click to expand...

I like this part of the opinion. You could argue this sets the bar fairly high for regulation of the RKBA. Essentially members of a criminal enterprise were not disarmed because they had a consitutional RKBA so they were instead disbanded.
 
Took a brief peak. Breyer's dissenting opinion, and adopted by Ginsburg and Sotomayor is scary. Very anti-gun. Stevens was in a scholarly duel to the death with Scalia which had little to to with the 2nd Amendment while Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas hopped on the Alito train. Thomas, I really failed to understand his point but from what I gathered he was entertaining legal fiction. This must have been a really entertaining.

I need to re-read carefully, specially the opinions from Thomas, Stevens and Scalia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top