WE WON!!! The Supreme Court ruling upheld 2a rights by affirming that the law is applicable to Federal, State and City equally. Anti-gun folks are going to hate the ruling.
AP News : The Orange County Register
Jun 28, 10:21 AM EDT
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.
In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago
Monday, June 28, 2010
Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.
The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizenís constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.
But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.
The intent of the founding fathers -- and the Supreme Court -- was to provide access. Words must have meaning.
The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
Iím a practical guy. I donít want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes Ė anywhere they live!
This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals canít access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.
The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Courtís McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.
What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you canít buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?
Hereís a piece of paper Ė protect yourself. Thatís no right at all!
Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.
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 ******** 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!
The opinion is quite clear that this is a fundamental right. The court opinion mentions fundamental right 9 times, on pages 8, 11, 16, 20, 28, 29, 29, 31 and 37. It explicitly prohibits courts from taking an interest balancing approach, says the right is fully applicable to the states (no watered down right) and provides bright lines for what states can regulate.
State regulation recognized as OK for:
I Possession by felons and mentally ill
II Sensitive areas such as government buildings and schools
III Conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.
court opinion p39-40.
A persons right to carry a firearm infringes on no one elses rights (the right to "feel safe" does not exist). If a person commits a crime while in I, II or III, then increase the penalty, but don't remove the fundamental right because someone "may" feel better about it.
The government should make a clear and compelling case for restricting an INDIVIDUALS right, and not create a blanket restriction.
Then there is the felon thing, which is such bull. If it only meant crimes that resulted in serious injury or death, then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it. I still would have an issue, but at the moment, my biggest concern is that almost every crime under the sun is a felony these days. Including things that shouldn't be a crime at all, like owning six or more sex toys.
Felons, violent or otherwise, should not lose their constitutional rights. While they are incarcerated, sure, but if they are safe enough to release back into society, then by damn they should be safe enough to own firearms. Otherwise, keep them in jail. is it perfect? NO. Is this America? I still think so.
It used to be that when you were released from prison you were given your personal effects and if a six shooter and gun belt was part of that, you stuck them back on and walked out the door.
There are way too many felonies in this country and the vast majority of them have no violent element what so ever. Should all of the people below have their firearms rights restricted? I'm sure mayor Daley, Helmke, and all the rest of the rabid anti's will say "YES".
In Russ City AZ it is a felony to mispronounce the name of the State Flower
It's a felony to create a website that contains more than five "Under Construction" icons under the Arizona State Constitution.
It's a Class B felony to cook a chicken during a thunderstorm in Kentucky.
Teens sending nudie pics to their boy/girl friends is a felony and usually "child pornography".
Harrisonburg VA - throwing snowballs at vehicles is a felony
Pointing a laser at an aircraft is a felony
It is a felony to install police style flashing lights on your vehicle
Chicago - spray painting grafitti is a felony
Steal a goat in Texas and you've committed a felony (any schools out there have a goat mascot??)
In PA 13 students were charged with felonies for using the administrator password to bypass filters and monitoring software in the laptops issued to them (all students) by the school.
I finished reading the opinion earlier tonight.....ALL OF IT including the dissenters.......
While the opinion sort of went the way we wanted it also put a bunch of gobldygook in there. However, for the first time I can recall, the racist beginnings of gun control have finaly been acknowledge in the official government record. Unfortunately, they left the door open for states, counties, and cities to just keep rewriting things with new twists and sending us back to the courts. If they HAD (and I don't think they did) to say some restrictions could be made, then why didn't they say "and nothing else"?
With a 5-4 court and the Arab in office, it is not inconceiveable that something could happen to one of the 5 intelligent justices and we find ourselves facing a change in the way the court leans....which could man the new restrictions that get challenged end up standing.
Why is it so hard to understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and that, if it is incorporated against the states, then the right, quite simply, can't be infringed?
I would think that decades of regulation in Chicago, the failure of "gun free" zones, and all the other failings of the gun control movement would be enough evidence that 9 justices could say "you know, this gun control thing just doesn't work" and verify the INALIENABLE RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms?
I would say "wait until an armed law abiding citizen happens to stop a school shooting and see what they say"....but that's already happened, several times, and they simply choose to ignore it.
Prepare my friends, this battle was won but the war is far from over and it may not be winnable at the ballot box.
I really enjoy what my Congressman, Doug Lamborn, had to say about it:
2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS REAFFIRMED
This week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago that state and local governments must honor the constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms. This decision came on the same day that the Senate began confirmation hearings for President Obamaís Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
The Court reaffirmed that the right to bear arms applies everywhere in the country and cannot be stripped away by state or local governments. For the past 50 years, gun owners have faced the constant threat of politicians trying to undermine their rights. This ruling should put an end to those efforts once and for all. I am grateful for the majority on the court correctly applying the Constitution to this case and adhering to the intent of our Founding Fathers.
However, the slim margin of this victory points to the need to be vigilant in the selection of our next Supreme Court Justice. We cannot allow the far-left liberals in this country to pack the court and threaten our rights in the future.
I too, appreciated what my Congressional Representative, Mike Coffman, had to say about the ruling as well:
(WASHINGTON) - Rep. Mike Coffman (R - Aurora) issued the following statement today praising the U.S. Supreme Courtís ruling in McDonald v. Chicago whereby it extended the right to keep and bear arms to all fifty states:
ďTodayís ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms that our ability as Americans to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. It also reaffirms that states cannot legislatively deny this right given under the constitution. As a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, I am pleased the Supreme Court made this basic and important decision.Ē
I live just south of Denver, Co......and we are blessed in our state to be able to both OPEN and CONCEALED carry......except our City/County of Denver has a Mayor who suffers from Mayor Daly-itis........maybe they can be legally challenged in court now....
Yeah, especially since there was a recent news report that psychologists are trying to get Orthorexia added to the DSM-V as an officially recognized mental disorder. My wife, who is an RN with over 20 years of experience, pointed out this new development to me last night...
By the way, "Orthorexia" is when someone refuses to eat any food that contains unhealthy ingredients like preservatives, poisons, carcinogens, or other bad chemicals...
They are trying to label you insane if you insist that your food is healthy and free of poisons, drugs, and weaponized chemicals.
I love how they say that people wanting to ONLY eat food that is healthy is some sort of "obsession". What is wrong with wanting your veggies to NOT be full of carcinogenic pesticides, genetically-spliced biochemical weapons, and genes from animals like pigs and even HUMANS?
What's wrong with not wanting neurotoxins in your drinking water and fruit juice? What's wrong with not wanting to eat meat that is loaded with steroids, artificial growth hormones, and antibiotics?
The really funny thing about this is that the super-rich all have their food grown on closed farms where it is guaranteed to be pure, truly organic, and safe from genetic molestation. Why do you think that the G20 cost the city of Toronto over $1.2 BILLION for three days? It sure as hell wasn't because they were paying Rothschild-like salaries to the RCMP...
God forbid that a "commoner" should want a hamburger that isn't essentially a biological equivalent of weaponized protein...
And you guys call ME a nut-case conspiracy theorist...
Last edited by Dreamer; 07-03-2010 at 12:31 PM.
He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableĖand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come ÖÖÖÖ. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776
to some extent, the NRA has had some pretty stellar recent victories, as well.
As the NRA successfully challanged San Francisco's ban, supported the challenge against Chicago's ban, and has promised lawsuits against Chicago's overly restrictive laws in violation of the recent SCOTUS ruling...
I wouldn't go around knocking them too much, if I were you, particularly in context of the Chicago issue. They're on our side and carry a big stick. If you piss 'em off, they'll just go home.
I hate to be a nit-picker, but I think the word you want is UNalienable...
These two words are VERY different in meaning, and with regards to the sort of rights they describe. In the Declaration of Independence, they say that we have certain "unalienable rights". Unalienable means that a right is FUNDAMENTAL to being human--it exists before, and without the presence or existence of, a government. It means that such a right CANNOT be taken away, restricted, sold, or controlled by any authority--NOT EVEN by the individual. NO person, community, or institution has the moral, spiritual or legal authority to remove or restrict such a right.
Inalienable rights, however, are different. Although they are also closely tied to being human, they are rights that arise from agreements and consensus, and therefore CAN be traded away, sold, restricted by community consensus, or otherwise removed, restricted, or negotiated, but ONLY by the consent of the individual.
That little vowel and the beginning of that word makes a HUGE difference. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be sure to use the correct word when discussing the 2A, because it is, quite literally, the difference between Liberty and Slavery...
Yes, it's spelled "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence. However, Websters has no definition for unalienable but does for inalienable, and if you search for unalienable there is no textual description, only a reference to inalienable. Words change over time whether it be their spelling, meaning, or acceptability.
Main Entry: in∑alien∑able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Etymology: probably from French inaliťnable, from in- + aliťnable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
I don't see any allowance for "voluntarilly" giving up inalienable rights.
We must remember however, that the Declaration of Independence predates our founding documents. The Articles of Confederation and our Constitution both came post Declaration and were extensively debated. That something is in the Declaration does not mean it has the same weight as something in the Constitution and neither inalienable or unalienable appear in the Constitution. The words of the Declaration lend support to the intent of the people at the time but is not as strong as the Constitution and it's amendments.
Researching several .edu sites reveals that inalienable rights, when described, can not be severed from the individual. No mention is made of voluntary serverability, nor of governments involuntarilly severing them from the individual. Some scholarly works however, do argue that "the public good" can justify severing inalienable rights.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I will refer to scholarly sites over a non verified web page any time. Scholars have biases, we all do, but .edu sites are much more reliable than a web page put up by who knows who.
For Example: A convicted murderer denied one or more victims of the right of life, society then will deprive the murderer of their life.
Is this "right", or "appropriate"? Should society have the right to deny *any* individual of their unalienable rights, permanently? Executing a criminal is no different from lifetime imprisonment (both deny multiple fundamental rights), and as long as we allow society to deny fundamental rights at any level, it becomes a potential slippery slope to ensure other fundamental rights are not denied, especially in lesser cases (e.g. convicted felons w/o 2A rights).
And that's the cost of our constitutional republic - constant vigilance to ensure our rights are not violated by our (limited) government.