Skip to comments.MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
Posted on 06/28/2010 8:54:45 AM PDT by libstripper
JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, IIA, IIB, IID, IIIA, and IIIB, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts IIC, IV, and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join. Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbias, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously heldthat most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Scalia really took it to Stevens.
I have a right to keep and bear arms for my own and my families protection when my nation is under attack.
Shame on the anti-gun lobby & those who support such special interest.
in light of this decision and the fact that the Brady Group, whose sole purpose is the OVERTHROW of the US CONSTITUTION with regards to the 2nd Amendment. Can they and should they be now Classified as a “Terrorist Organization”??
Good news from the SC.
<I have a right to keep and bear arms for my own and my families protection when my nation is under attack.
<Shame on the anti-gun lobby & those who support such special interest.
If you want to see a great screen history of the Demonrats, go see Gangs of New York. It even tells how they still run their party and why Detroit and other lib cities are total cesspools...
Oh yeah. I especially enjoyed the following quotes:
"The notion that the absence of a coherent theory of the Due Process Clause will somehow curtail judicial caprice is at war with reason."
'He describes as an important tool for guiding judicial discretion sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society. Post, at 24. I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judges are more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences?'
If a supreme court opinion can be considered funny, that would be it. I was expecting him to start referring to "that idiot Stevens" at any point.
Seriously, though, while I agree with the right to bear arms to be a fundamental individual right, I believe the majority here and in Heller tip-toe around the obvious. All the discussion of self-defense seems to imply the main concern is of protecting oneself from criminal element when the obvious reading of the second amendment in its entirety is to protect oneself from the federal government. Given the framers distrust of central government explains the plain language. Reading the dissent hammers the point home why the feds should be feared. It was a 5-4 decision. Kagan would keep such decisions 5-4. We are one vote change away from losing (or needing to exercise) our right to bear arms.
How can four Justices be so anti-Constitution?
Be Ever Vigilant!
Depends on their methods. Should they go beyond mere advocacy of their position, their status as simply another hate group could go beyond their liability to civil RICO or civil rights suits and could earn them federal criminal status as well:Title 18 United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code,
§ection 241: Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, >u>they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.