Skip to comments.The Aftermath of McDonald v. Chicago - What's next for gun rights?
Posted on 07/09/2010 11:17:36 AM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Courts decision in McDonald v. Chicago came in this week, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for a plurality that the Second Amendment right to own guns applies to all levels of governmentin the legal lingo, that the right is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas also elected to reverse the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, laws that essentially banned handgun use in the home couldnt be challenged on Second Amendment grounds. But he did so in a more radical way. Indeed, Thomas's concurrence was radical in both senses of the word. It struck to the root of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, by declaring that its Privileges or Immunities Clause was the proper means to apply weapon possession rights to the states, rather than the less textually or originalist-appropriate Due Process Clause that the Alito opinion relied on.
Thomas was also radical in the sense that a victory for his pro-Privileges or Immunities Clause viewpoint would represent an extreme change in American jurisprudence. (In their respective dissents, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer essentially denied that 2008s Heller decision ever happened, maintaining that the right in the Second Amendment could be balanced and experimented out of existence by states and localities in a manner no other constitutional right could be.)
Now, America faces the aftermath of the dual jurisprudential revolutions that the winning legal team in McDonald, led by Heller lawyer Alan Gura, tried to create.
The first such revolution is the application of the Second Amendments protected rightat least to have commonly used weapons in the home for self-defenseto actions of state and local governments...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Stupid is as stupid does.
I would bet that if Chicago allowed responsible gun ownership, they would see such a drop in crime that it would boggle their small minds.
What’s next? Hopefully a suit against Daley and the entire City Council for willfull, intentional, and malicious violations of Civil Rights.
A gun is not a major manfacturing challenge. The underworld could be turning them out by the thousands, and selling them from the trunks of cars. If 0’b creates enough joblessness, there my be plenty of jobless machinests willing to work under the table to pick up some pocket money. Ya think Mayor Daly don’t know this? Think again.
According to Shortshanks, “responsible gun ownership” only applies to the taxpayer provided bodyguards who surround HIM 24/7.
Hopefully a repeal of the Hughes Amendment 18 USC 922(o).
Benson v. Chicago
A lawsuit by the National Rifle Association and NOT supported by most Freepers.
What isn't supported by most Freepers, the lawsuit or the National Rifle Association, and what makes you say that?
Well, some folks in Chicago sure do have a chance to make a statement here very soon...
I’m very interested in the turnout, and the statement those folks “should” make in attending...
Thanks for the link.
Personally, I feel they should be pursuing criminal charges and civil liability against every last one of the council and the mayor, for violation of civil rights under color of law, rather than suing over each of dozens of piecemeal infringements.
Pretty much all of the FReepers I have viewed on this forum are fully supportive of the NRA when they step up to the plate, instead of making backroom deals to muzzle free speech and further damage the 2A.
As I have mentioned to you many times, our attention MUST be on furthering the Second Amendment at all costs... instead of unfairly attacking others in this battle.
When a group screws up, they MUST be called on the carpet for their actions...
When the "gun grabbers" backs are covered by corrupted Federal Government, a corrupt U.S. President, a corrupted Dept. Of Justice and the corrupt political machine that runs Illinois, it would be very difficult at best to win such cases.
>>What’s next for gun laws?
>Hopefully a repeal of the Hughes Amendment 18 USC 922(o).
Which one is that?
Personally, I’d like to see the whole NFA struck down (and with that gone the BATF should crumble.... I can dream, right?).
USC TITLE 18, CHAPTER 13, § 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; or
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, 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.
Hopefully a challenge to California’s “may issue” CCW law, that allows local sheriffs and police chiefs to decide who gets a permit based on their personal and capricious opinion of whether you “need” one. It would be like allowing local governments to decide of you have free speech based on whether what you have to say is “important”. Should be a slam dunk (not that it would be in the Ninth Circus Court).
Cool. I just bookmarked that. I’ll keep an eye on it.
Same as it ever was. They try to keep us from possessing firearms, we try to keep them from doing so. Status quo ante, I beleve the phrase is. Well, with the possible exception that we don’t have to go all the way back to Justice Story to claim that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
They know that. It was never about crime control, only about keeping the jackboot on the neck of the citizens.