The McDonald Decision

But the salient point remains, I can find no indication that the Court has overturned a previous decision when that decision was, at its heart, the original intent of the Framers.
Click to expand...

That is because there hasn't been one.

It's over IMHO, our right to privately own firearms for self-defense purposes will not be changed.

As time goes on, and as more previously "banned" people are now allowed to own firearms, the likelihood of these cases defining the original intent of the Framers being overturned are so minute that I am not worried about it.

As many, many more people become exposed to firearms, or to people owning firearms, their illogical fear of them will diminish. The raw numbers of rabidly anti-gun people will also dwindle as time goes on IMHO. This is very good for our side.

Could I be wrong...yes. What is the likelihood of me being wrong......miniscule IMHO.
 
Which removes the bugaboo should end the screeching about every gun law as a prelude to confiscation of all guns by the Blue Helmets in conjunction with ZOG and the Bilderbergers.

In a certain sense Hennigan is right about the impact of the decision. If VA decides that one gun a month is appropriate, then both sides can work it out knowing that passing the low WONT lead to confiscation and CANT lead to confiscation.
Click to expand...

I was in Lousiana during the hurricane's and the police did illegally confiscate weapons that were in lawful use by private citizens to protect themselves.

It is folly to think this wont or cant happen again. The supreme court made this ruling yes, but people like Mayor Dailey will do everything to completely ignore it and to indeed act contrary to the Bill of Rights in letter and spirit.

Many anti gunners think there personal ideas are much more important than any document signed by the founding fathers.
 
Someone mentioned a sad fact to me today. If you look at the numbers, we call it a 5-4 win. However, it can be looked at as an 8-1 loss for Privileges or Immunities. Though Thomas did agree the 2nd should be incorporated, he feels it should have gone through PorI. As such, we could look at this as a 4-5 decision for Due Process incorporation.

In any case, I'm going to throw temperance to the wind for a moment and declare Thomas the only person on the bench with much of a spine.

We can assume by her silent and tacit alliance with Breyer on his dissent that Sotomayor is just as anti-gun as many claimed.
 
Initially I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Chicago ban was not out right declared unconsititutional. But then the case would distinguisable on its facts (which will no doubt still be tried).

However, on further consideration, the fact that the Court incorporated the second amendment to the states truely does make unreasonable retrictions harder to uphold.

Even though I'm not a consitutional scholar, I do know that it is very unlikely that fundamental rights will ever be removed. As I said earlier, resonable restrictions, like any other rights including fundamental ones are possible and will pass constitutional muster. But the fact is that fundamental right receive the most protection, and for this I am truely thankful.
 
Reasonable restricions

The "Reasonable restrictions" argument has always bothered me as whats reasonable to one can be so far out to another.
Take religious practices for instance. for a particular religious group to have tax exempt status there has to be a certan number of followers, before the government recognises it as legitimate (I can't claim my house to be a church with me the only member to get tax exempt status. Reasonable?). Such as what guns are in common use are protected by the second but NFA are not in common use so are not protected.
Am I way off base here???
 
grey sky said:
The "Reasonable restrictions" argument has always bothered me as whats reasonable to one can be so far out to another.
Take religious practices for instance. for a particular religious group to have tax exempt status there has to be a certan number of followers, before the government recognises it as legitimate (I can't claim my house to be a church with me the only member to get tax exempt status. Reasonable?). Such as what guns are in common use are protected by the second but NFA are not in common use so are not protected.
Am I way off base here???
Click to expand...


You (we all) have to stop restricting out thinking of "arms" to "firearms". I don't think that there are ANY "normal" firearms that should be banned/illegal.

What about an F22 Raptor? TOE anti-tank missile? Nuclear Bomb? See? Those are reasonable restrictions.

If I can own a 10 round 9mm pistol, with 90 ten round magazines, then why can't I own a 100 round pistol? Makes no sense. That restriction is not reasonable.

If I can own a gun that holds 30 rounds and will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger then why not full-auto? In most cases, an active shooter with a full auto would likely do LESS damage than the same shooter with a semi. There's simply no compelling reason for drawing this distinction.

The AWB... why is a rifle with a wooden stock and iron sights legal but the EXACT same gun with an EEEEvil black plastic stock and pistol grip illegal? No good reason.

Logic people can tell the difference.
 
grey sky said:
The "Reasonable restrictions" argument has always bothered me as whats reasonable to one can be so far out to another...
Click to expand...
In fact, "reasonable" is not the standard. See post 71.
fiddletown said:
...It has long been settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, we have some reason to hope that the highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply. Strict scrutiny has thus far been the standard applied to any regulation of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest....
Click to expand...
 
Tom Servo said:
We can assume by her silent and tacit alliance with Breyer on his dissent that Sotomayor is just as anti-gun as many claimed.
Click to expand...
We don't have to look at her signing onto the dissent. She did, of course, but that's just confirmation. All we really need to know is that, even after Heller established that the 2A does, indeed, protect an individual right, Justice Sotomayor chose to vote against "extending" that right to the citizens of the fifty states. How much MORE anti-gun can she get than that?
 
Was there really ever any doubt about Sotomayer?

I actually find myself agreeing, probably for the first time ever, with Diane Feinstein when she said that we can really never know about a judge until they're seated.

She exactly right.... but in todays world, we can pretty well assume that they're going to follow the inclinations of the appointer. 15, 20, 30 years ago, that was slightly less likely, today, I'd say it's all but guaranteed.

Sotomayer is likely to vote what amounts to straight down party lines, and Kagan will do the same. I'm just glad that neither of them represents a shift in the court. A lost chance for an entire generation or even two, but not shift.
 
Was there really ever any doubt about Sotomayer?
Click to expand...
For me, there was. I went over her history during confirmation, and on several occasions, she quite vehemently stood for the rights of the individual over the powers of government.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt in the Maloney decision, since, as the 7th Circuit observed, incorporation would have violated precedent. Essentially, the issue was above the Circuit courts' pay grade.

However, the 2A is obviously a very party-line issue, as you mentioned. I was obviously wrong about her.
 
Moved from my closed thread

McDonald and Pending Court Cases
OK, we got the McDonald v Chicago ruling we were hoping for. Maybe not by the margin wanted, but a win is a win in my book.
So here's my question:
With the decision made, what happens to the pending cases in California, the 9th Circuit Court and elsewhere that have been waiting for SCOTUS to rule?
I seem to recall reading about numerous cases all sitting around waiting for this day. Is there a mountain of paperwork being filed?
Are lawyers lining up at court houses to see if they can get other gun laws looked at by the courts?

What about the decision that the 9th Circuit has on hold? Any ideas when that will get revisited?

Moved here due to inclusion of the pending cases in this "mega thread"
 
What about colleges?

This is from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. today - http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Gun-Bans-Are-Still-on/66089/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en. The link probably won't work without a subscription.

The gist is that McD won't be the golden key to campus carry. That will have to be accomplished by legislative action in each state. The opposition to such comes from

1. Antigunners on the left
2. So called conservative business types who feel that such a ruling might weaken their case for maintaining bans on private property - which they support not for so-called private property liberty issues but the hypocritical issue of liability.

Here's the piece.

Campus Gun Bans Are Still on Solid Ground, Legal Experts Say
By Eric Kelderman

Washington

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday that struck down handgun restrictions imposed by the City of Chicago was seen as a major victory for gun-rights advocates. Higher-education leaders, however, are optimistic that the ruling will not undermine campus bans on firearms.

The immediate effect of the Supreme Court's opinion is that campus gun restrictions are now open to challenge in federal courts, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine.

But the Supreme Court made clear that an individual's right to bear arms does not undermine state and local government bans in public spaces, such as schools and colleges, said Mr. Chemerinsky, who spoke on a panel at the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys that discussed Supreme Court actions affecting higher education.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., quoted the court's 2008 ruling that undid the District of Columbia's handgun ban: "We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,' 'laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.'"

"We repeat those assurances here," Justice Alito wrote in the opinion released on Monday in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Another speaker on the panel here, William E. Thro, university counsel at Christopher Newport University, said future legal challenges to campus gun bans could make distinctions between institutions that are self-contained and those that are in the midst of suburban or urban settings where public and private spaces are less distinct.

Derek P. Langhauser, general counsel for the Maine Community College System, agreed that most campus bans would survive court challenges because the ruling is meant primarily to safeguard the rights of individuals to protect themselves in their homes.

However, if campuses run into problems defending firearms restrictions, it will be because they cannot point to specific authority from their state government that gives the institution or its governing board the ability to make those restrictions, he said.

One example of that kind of case is playing out in Colorado, where the state's Court of Appeals ruled in April that a lawsuit against gun restrictions on campuses could go forward. A lower court had dismissed the suit in deference to the University of Colorado regents' policy-making authority, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the state appellate court reinstated it, saying the campus ban appeared to violate state weapons law. "Had the legislature intended to exempt universities, it knew how to do so," the panel's opinion states.

The Board of Regents recently voted to appeal that decision to the state's Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe not by the margin wanted, but a win is a win in my book.
Click to expand...

The McDonald decision is a declaration by the Supreme Court that the wording of the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms, rather than a collective right of state militias. This is huge.
 
Maromero said:
This is huge.
Click to expand...

Huge, philosophically, yes.

Mostly meaningless for actual effect in the short term, or even not too distant long term, IMO.

Unless there's another case already 90% through the system that will radically (and clearly) redefine what is and is not permissible then it's mostly a philosophical victory for the reasonable future, and I know of no such case. There are plenty of cases currently in the system that will help to make small, incremental changes, but I see none that will provide for radical, nation-wide rewrites of existing laws and policies.
 
What about the defense against tyranny?

Not being a legal scholar - it seems to me that one central point in the current debate is the role of firearms in personal self-defense.

But what about defense against tyranny? Was it or is it still important?

A letter to the NY Times today made that point:

To the Editor:

Our Supreme Court apparently believes that the Second Amendment, including the right to keep and bear arms, is based on personal protection. Your article states, “The majority said little more than that there is a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.”

It is clear to me that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the citizenry from its own government, not from the local criminals. A militia, free of government control, retains the right to keep and bear arms, so the government cannot confiscate guns and have a monopoly on arms.

Protection from one’s own government was the reason for our civil rights then, as it continues to be now. So why does our Supreme Court keep talking about defense of one’s home?

E. Ware Cady III
Charlestown, Mass., June 29, 2010
Click to expand...


Now, Clarence Thomas' opinion clearly points out that gun control laws were designed in part to deprive blacks of the instrumentality to protect themselves against racists who were in part supported by Southern local governmental structures.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html

His opinion speaks to the issue:

The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, “ ‘[t]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob.’ ” Church Burnings Follow Negro Agitator’s Lynching, Chicago Defender, Sept. 6, 1919, in id. , at 124. Sometimes, as in Cooper’s case, self-defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. Ibid. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. See Cottrol, 354. The experience left him with a sense, “not ‘of powerlessness, but of the “possibilities of salvation” ’ ” that came from standing up to intimidation. Ibid.

In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank ’s contrary holding that warrants its retention.
Click to expand...

He ties self-defense to the preservation of liberty. The governmental support of the oppression of blacks (even through 'private' militias) is clearly an instance of tyranny.

So, are we losing one part of the reason for the 2nd - the defense against liberty in the majority view and most of the discussion.

On this forum, I've pointed out the defense of liberty and some say that we could not defend against the might of the armed forces. But that's a touch of a red herring. Defense against actions such as Thomas describes (which were a form of governmental tyranny) is certainly possible. In history, we certainly see how ruling parties fund and use terror against opponents on their way to power or to maintain power. Kristallnacht (certainly an instance of government approved terror and tyranny) might have been a different story with an armed populace.

Just my thoughts for today.

Glenn
 
Huge, philosophically, yes.

Mostly meaningless for actual effect in the short term, or even not too distant long term, IMO.
Click to expand...

The anti-gun lady who said "Oh my God, now every crazy right winger on the planet is going to be walking around my child's school with AK-47 machine guns in their pockets tomorrow!" is probably exagerating. Reality will be less extreme and more incremental. ;)
 
I see a fair amount of "hand-wringing" about Heller and McDonald only finding a right to keep a gun in the home for self defense. But that was the underlying factual context for each case, and courts decide the cases in front of them.

We need to remember that in the course of deciding Heller and McDonald, the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

In real world terms, that is huge.

When we all went to bed last Sunday night, we had little prospect for successfully challenging in court many of the most restrictive state gun laws. That all changed by breakfast time, of at least our mid-morning coffee break, on Monday morning. Now we have something to work with.
 
The McDonald decision is a declaration by the Supreme Court that the wording of the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms, rather than a collective right of state militias. This is huge.
Click to expand...

A slight nitpick. Heller did what you describe, but it only applied to the Federal government. McDonald extended Heller's reach to the states/local governments.

Between the two decisions a firm foundation has been laid that will serve as a powerful weapon against gun bigotry. And yes, despite the complaints from people who are unhappy because they can't carry a bazooka concealed without a permit today, it IS huge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top