Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Hear McDonald v. Chicago -- Monumental Second Amendment Case
Posted on 09/30/2009 2:17:51 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
But it's okay if it's infringed by "reasonable" state and local laws?
I've never understood precisely how the 14th incorporates none/some/all of the federal constitution to the states.
However, the ILL Constitution http://www.isba.org/Sections/constbook.pdf on page 48 states, "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I have no idea if Mayor Daley or any other municipal executive through the police power can legitimately deny RKBA.
Now is the time for all REAL Americans to put our 2nd Amemndment FIRST!!
. The legal term police power is an ancient concept, one that under girds the primary and most important reason for government, that of the responsibility to promulgate law necessary for the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the populace. Black’s Law dictionary, 6th edition, p.1156 of defines police power as follows:
...adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.
The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government. Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883.
Note how this definition of police power is circumscribed by the requirement to be exercised within constitutional limits. The supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution, not the common law provision of police power. The exercise of police power must be subordinate to the supreme dictates of the Constitution. In the Quilici vs. Morton Grove decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took the most expansive interpretation possible of the phrase “police power” in Article I, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution and said that the right to keep and bear arms is what any particular unit of government says it is under the home rule provisions of the Illinois Constitution. The court held that Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual’s liberty or property. In effect, the power of the state legislature has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans, and this effectively preempts the right of the state legislature to carve out legislative exceptions to the unconstitutional gun bans enacted under home rule provisions. Just wait until one of these communities decides to appeal Illinoiss recent Self Defense Act passed over Gov. Blagojevichs veto. They will cite the 7th Circuit Court Morton Grove decision as the basis to overturn the Act.
I consulted with a good friend of mine who is a constitutional scholar and attorney. He gave me black letter law on the constitution. A Constitution, whether federal or state is not a grant of authority, but a limit. That means that the Second Amendment as such is a limit on legislative authority, i.e. the police power.
A climate has been created in Illinois wherein local communities such as Morton Grove, Oak lawn, Chicago, Wilmette, and many others have seized upon “police power” has the pretextual cart of gun prohibition to drive the constitutional “horse” of the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers were probably the most astute observers of governmental theories that have ever been gathered at one time in one place in all of history. They were quite aware of the police power provision of English common law, but they did not intend that the police power would modify the Second Amendments general protection of the right to keep and bear arms into a general prohibition on a whole class of firearm that are suitable for militia use. This use is for the people mentioned in the second clause of the 2nd amendment and is in accord with the provisions of the last Supreme Court decision that directly bore on the Second Amendment, the Miller decision of 1939.
None of this means that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed under any circumstances. The police power can be properly invoked to do so should one employ a firearm under circumstances that can reasonably be construed to cause alarm or harm to another, or in the commission of a crime. It is an entirely appropriate exercise of the police power to seize weapons so used and prosecute any such offenders. But that is hardly the case insofar as Wilmette, Chicago, Morton Grove, and the other units of government that invoke blanket prohibitions of handguns to ALL their residents, who are law abiding and peaceable.
I note that these communities are generally pretty affluent. I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of the residents are mature adults in professions that license them to fly airplanes, practice medicine and surgery, use explosives such as dynamite in construction, design buildings and bridges, and employed in many other occupations that involve a considerable degree of expertise and skill. It should be highly insulting to them to think that NONE of these residents are capable of using an instrument that an 18-year-old private in the military can be taught to use effectively in three days.
It is my earnest hope that discussions of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be reclaimed from the province of emotionalism, junk science, unconstitutional judicial decisions, constitutionally illiterate politicians, anti-gun news editorials, and replaced with logic, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and a respect for the citizens to whom the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is granted by natural law and protected by the 2nd Amendment.