Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Aftermath of McDonald v. Chicago - What's next for gun rights?
Reason ^ | July 1, 2010 | Brian Doherty

Posted on 07/09/2010 11:17:36 AM PDT by neverdem

The Supreme Court’s 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 government—in 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 couldn’t 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 2008’s 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 Amendment’s protected right—at least to have commonly used weapons in the home for self-defense—to actions of state and local governments...

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; mcdonald; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed

1 posted on 07/09/2010 11:17:44 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


2 posted on 07/09/2010 11:36:54 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What’s next? Hopefully a suit against Daley and the entire City Council for willfull, intentional, and malicious violations of Civil Rights.


3 posted on 07/09/2010 12:07:01 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

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.


4 posted on 07/09/2010 12:29:09 PM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

According to Shortshanks, “responsible gun ownership” only applies to the taxpayer provided bodyguards who surround HIM 24/7.


5 posted on 07/09/2010 12:53:21 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What's next for gun laws?

Hopefully a repeal of the Hughes Amendment 18 USC 922(o).

6 posted on 07/09/2010 1:06:42 PM PDT by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Benson v. Chicago
A lawsuit by the National Rifle Association and NOT supported by most Freepers.

Next question?


7 posted on 07/09/2010 2:34:11 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
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?

8 posted on 07/09/2010 5:03:53 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2548597/posts

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...


9 posted on 07/09/2010 7:40:17 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Thanks for the link.


10 posted on 07/09/2010 9:58:42 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


11 posted on 07/10/2010 4:04:15 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
12 posted on 07/10/2010 4:23:01 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; All
A lawsuit by the National Rifle Association and NOT supported by most Freepers. Next question?

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...

13 posted on 07/10/2010 4:34:43 AM PDT by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
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.

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.

14 posted on 07/10/2010 4:45:08 AM PDT by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

>>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?).


15 posted on 07/10/2010 6:57:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

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.


16 posted on 07/10/2010 7:00:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

What’s next?

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).


17 posted on 07/10/2010 8:23:44 AM PDT by Hugin (Remember the first rule of gunfighting...have a gun..-- Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

fyi

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness


18 posted on 07/10/2010 8:57:47 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Cool. I just bookmarked that. I’ll keep an eye on it.


19 posted on 07/10/2010 12:11:49 PM PDT by Hugin (Remember the first rule of gunfighting...have a gun..-- Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


20 posted on 07/10/2010 1:12:54 PM PDT by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman
they would see such a drop in crime that it would boggle their small minds.

They know that. It was never about crime control, only about keeping the jackboot on the neck of the citizens.

21 posted on 07/12/2010 11:03:12 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson