Supreme Court: Second Amendment Case, McDonald v. City Of Chicago, To Be Heard This Week

The Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago on Tuesday. Their ruling will have implications for the future of second amendment rights as well as the relationship between constitutional protections and local laws.

At issue, according to the ScotusWiki summary of the case is "whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home."

Translation: Until this point, the Second Amendment has explicitly applied only to the federal government and areas under its jurisdiction -- such as the District of Columbia -- and not individual states.

This has allowed states and cities to pass different limitations on the possession and purchase of firearms. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment advocates in this case, which now includes representatives of the National Rifle Association, their finding may eliminate a state's power to infringe upon now-nationally applicable Constitutionally protected rights. Though the right to bear arms is specifically at issue in this case, some believe that the findings may have future ramifications for additional rights of citizenship such as health care or housing.

In 2008, the Supreme Court addressed a similar case in District of Columbia v. Heller, but because Washinton D.C. isn't a state, the eventual ruling -- which found the city's gun ban unconstitutional -- didn't extend to the broader issue of state powers with regard to the Second Amendment.

Comments

[ObamAtomic]

06:32 PM on 03/10/2010

bannorhill I'm not a Fan of bannorhill I'm not a fan of this user 43 fans permalink

The Supreme court did stop the recount. At the point the recount was stopped Bush had more votes than Gore. The Florida voters had selected Bush.

If the recount had been allowed to continue to completion Bush still would have won.
Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 3/10/2010
_+_+_++_+_+_++_+++_+_+_+_+_+_++_+_+_++_+_+_+_+_+

It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterward, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.Scalia.

Note Scalia language " The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush"

Where is the concern for Gore?

[clearbrook6]

01:48 PM on 03/04/2010

If anyone wants to own a gun they should join the National Guard of their respective state. The right of States to form Militias was the intention of the second amendment. Militias became the National Guard. Maybe States should train more people for the National Guard and use the members to protect neighborhoods under siege. This might help neighborhoods such as ones in Chicago and DC feel protected. The original militias were not paid. Perhaps there could be a safe way for the National Guard to train unpaid concerned citizens. Our inner cities are being destroyed by crime and fear.

[ScottM1A]

04:24 PM on 03/06/2010

Heinrich Himmler said, those who want be armed should join the SA or SS.
How sweet we have a statist, if one looked at the 20th century history you might be less inclined to suggest the only people that should be armed are the government. Turkey 1.5 million, USSR 35 million, Nazi Germany 13 million, Nationalist China 15 million, Maoist China 30 to 40 million, Cambodia 2 million, Uganda 300,000, Rwanda 800,000 Darfur 2 million and counting. Those were governments that killed their citizens in numbers so far exceeding the numbers killed by criminals that it isn't even funny. I suppose I should also mention the millions of American Indians killed by the USA. What all of these deaths have in common was their governments disarmed their citizens shortly before slaughtering them. I'll pass on you idea thanks. By the way the National Guard is not a state entity anymore.

[RevJimIII]

11:25 PM on 03/07/2010

The National Guard did not exist when the second amendment was written. The 'milita' is any man between 18 and 45 who can take up arms (privately owned) in defense of his state/country in time of invasion, tyrrany or disaster.

[dogisgreat]

10:12 AM on 03/03/2010

Time for a new constitution.

[Sivispacemparabellum]

10:33 AM on 03/03/2010

Good luck getting that !

The MOST you could hope for would be a new Constitutional Ammedment, which requires 3/4's of the States and a 2/3rds vote in Congress to pass. Considering that more the HALF of Congress from BOTH parties signed onto a "friend of the Court Brief" SUPPORTING Incorporation of the Second Ammendment, the LARGEST number in the entire history of Congress , I'd say your chances of your stated desire actually coming true are about equal with the likelyhood of a snowflake surviving a 90 degree day

[dogisgreat]

05:55 PM on 03/03/2010

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

- Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

[SewaneeLeftist]

06:32 PM on 03/02/2010

I have little to no hope that this radical, ideologically-driven, legislating-from-the-bench SCOTUS will allow the irony of state law being allowed to do the common sense regulation of guns that the SCOTUS majority overturned in Heller, ESPECIALLY since, as some analysts have pointed out, the majority's ruling there can easily be used to SUPPORT local and state gun regulation.

The only way the wish fulfillment interpretation of the gun addicts and fetishists will receive the brisk dismissal it deserves will be WHEN we get some justices nominated by presidents who value the Constitution. Say by someone who used to teach it at a top-level university.

[Ohio9]

06:56 PM on 03/02/2010

The D. C. case involved a total gun ban. All guns had to be kept disassembled or bound by trigger lock, making them impossible to use for self defense. The law contained no exception for any situation, meaning as soon as you made the gun functional, you violated the law.

This is what SewaneeLeftist is calling "common sense regulation". It's a lesson we should all take to heart, as I'm sure he's not the only gun grabber who feels that way about it. When they talk of "common sense gun regulation", they really mean broad, sweeping, and flagrently un-constitutional gun bans.

Sorry Sewanee, but it seems the current make up of SCOTUS consists of justices who know the second amendment actually means what it says. Don't expect that make up to change any time soon.

[SewaneeLeftist]

08:58 AM on 03/03/2010

That's all right, Ohio9; no need to apologize.

I wasn't speaking to anyone who thinks like you.

Though, now that you mention it, "broad, sweeping, and" COMPLETELY CONSTITUTIONAL to anyone who isn't a totemist "gun bans" look pretty good when I hear the sorts of defenses you fetishists bring up.

At least for today, the group of defenses ranged around projecting the addicts' fear of the world onto those who feel they don't need guns is my favorite set.

I love the psychobabble using the DSM -- it's like saying that because "yadda yadda" is in the dictionary it has authority.

I adore the claim that someone who doesn't like people getting hurt has a fear of inanimate objects.

But the best of these is the toaster defense against purpose and instrumentality. Aristotle knew about purpose (telos?) and he didn't even have toasters, toothbrushes, and all the other objects the addicts say somehow confer on guns pure innocence in their existence.

My bad. I'll go back to not interacting with those who think like this.

[bannorhill]

01:00 PM on 03/06/2010

After the ban became law did the gun deaths fall to zero?

NO!!!!!!!!!!! They went up because criminals KNEW law abiding citizens were unarmed.

[Thirdpower]

08:57 AM on 03/03/2010

As is typical of the 'gun control' advocates, SL is unable to explain exactly WHY the judges who support an individual right are wrong but instead can only throw out insults, stereotypes and personal attacks.

Maybe he should take a look at who supported the wonderful case of kelo v New London that determined the gov't can confiscate personal property to sell to private business.

[djcrsn]

03:36 PM on 03/03/2010

and all SL's attempts to prove us wrong were epic fails--apparently precedent is a tough concept

[JohnCaile]

02:53 PM on 03/02/2010

The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is about a basic human right: self-defense. And spare me the "local control" argument - fundamental rights outweigh "community standards" - we do not allow slavery regardless of the wishes of the community.
The 1st Amendment is subject to "reasonable restrictions" (no yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, or exhorting others to commit criminal acts, etc.) but no city or state agency can ban you from owning a computer, a radio, or a TV - likewise a local ordinance prohibiting the reckless discharge of a firearm in public would pass muster, but an outright ban on guns is a clear violation.
Also, note that we who choose to protect themselves do not force gun ownership on those who don't. But those who are afflicted with a phobia of guns do expect the rest of us to cater to their mental illness (note: fear of guns IS a "specific phobia" - clearly described in DSM-IV).
But the most ludicrous argument is that banning guns makes the community "safer" - I grew up in Chicago, and the drug dealing gangbangers are as heavily armed as ever - maybe more so. Chicago gangs have even been immortalized in the History Channel's award-winning series "Gangland" - in spite of Chicago's mountain of ridiculous gun laws.
Then again, politicians, and Chicago politicians especially, have never let silly little things like gun laws apply to themselves, now have they?

[legaleagle 45]

11:54 AM on 03/02/2010

From SCOTUSblog:

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations."

[funkdragon23]

12:31 AM on 03/02/2010

Why can't/don't the "community standards" that the Supreme Court imposed in Miller v. California regarding the 1st Amendment be applied to the 2nd Amendment, as in this SCOTUS case? Seems "apples to apples" to me. Community standards regarding handguns in Chicago are obviously way different than in Wyoming or Montana, for example. Shouldn't the same standards apply?

Discuss. I'm certain it will be.

[Sivispacemparabellum]

12:49 AM on 03/02/2010

Here you go

In subsequent cases the Court encountered tremendous difficulty in applying the Roth test, which did not define what it meant by "community standards." For example, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, involving whether Ohio could ban the showing of a French film called Les Amants (The Lovers), the Court ruled that the film was protected by the First Amendment, but could not agree as to a rationale, yielding four different opinions from the majority, with none garnering the support of more than two justices, as well as two dissenting opinions. In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography," famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), a plurality of the Court further redefined the Roth test by holding unprotected only that which is "patently offensive" and "utterly without redeeming social value,"

[funkdragon23]

01:21 AM on 03/02/2010

Thank you for this thoughtful response. You are either a legal scholar and/or way smarter than me--which to be fair, ain't too difficult.. Much obliged for not letting emotion get involved. Best answer I've heard.

Are "common sense" and "the law" mutually exclusive? I mean my heart tells me it's a great idea to ban handguns in my beloved yet dangerous city of Chicago, but my brain says the Constitution says it's only fair we get to carry arms.

The Supreme Court is not the right body to resolve this, is it?

Thanks again for for your educated, tempered response. Sincerely obliged.

[kjohney]

12:25 AM on 03/02/2010

You are right when you say that the Second Amendment couldn't be more clear. But it should definitely have limitations. The amendment says nothing about handguns. It says the right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed. Well the definition of "arms" is also pretty clear, it would include flame throwers, anthrax grenades, and surface to air missiles. So unless you gun guys are ready for gangs running through the streets with rocket propelled grenades, I think you'd have to agree that there should be limits as to what rights the Second Amendment protects.

[Sivispacemparabellum]

12:45 AM on 03/02/2010

Please provide the source for your definition alleging that. Your parsing the words to make a ridiculous assertion. " Bear Arms " means arms that can be carried by a man on foot. Or if you prefer, "small arms", meaning handguns , shotguns , rifles , etc.

[Leifrakur]

01:39 AM on 03/02/2010

In the use of "bear Arms" posted berlow, do you think Washington meant that it needed to be made "universally reputable" to carry arms on foot? Obviously, in militia context, "bear arms" meant "provide armed military service," not simply "carry arms."

By giving such a tone to our Establishment; by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country. (From "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment," by George Washington, 1783)

[billjones224]

01:21 AM on 03/02/2010

Court defined arms in Heller as common firearms of the time. Handguns were included specifically in the Heller decision.

[Sivispacemparabellum]

11:25 PM on 03/01/2010

Here's one for Bob and all his hoplophobe acolytes.

Semi Automatic Firearm technology has been around for over 100 years in the US. Its been widely available across the Country for almost 100 years. How is it that the rest of the Country does not experience the same level of violent crime that Chicago does ? Especially when Chicago has had essentially a complete ban for over 25 years?

[legaleagle 45]

08:55 PM on 03/01/2010

From SCOTUSblog:

"The Supreme Court has refused a request by cable and other broadcast networks to release on Tuesday the audiotape of the Court’s hearing in the Second Amendment case, McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). The refusal was conveyed to the networks by the Court, but no document was released on it. Under current policy, the written transcript of Tuesday’s argument will be released later in the day. The argument is scheduled for one hour, starting at 10 a.m."

This is sad news... I remeber listening to the oral arguments in Heller, which were available right after the arguments were concluded.

[UnbiasedVoter]

08:48 PM on 03/01/2010

I say let everyone have guns. Even the felons.

[Ifticar2]

09:46 PM on 03/01/2010

Felons already have access to all the guns that they want.

[BobSacomano]

10:10 PM on 03/01/2010

By your comment you imply that the existing gun control laws are doing absolutely nothing since anyone who wants a gun can just get one. So the ban on felons or the mentally ill should just be lifted since it does absolutely nothing, background checks mean nothing, and limits on types of weapons mean nothing because felons have access to all the guns they want.

All the talk about already having enough limitations and restrictions is just that.....talk. That leaves 2 options: 1. Do away with all gun regulations and let everyone become the town sheriff or 2. Institute the same regulations for certain guns as we do for area effect weapons

[BobSacomano]

10:13 PM on 03/01/2010

Why stop there? RPGs are pretty cool too, and can be plenty accurate.

[Ohio9]

03:37 AM on 03/02/2010

They are kind of hard to use for individual self defense.

They are made to be used against armored vehicles, not people.

[djcrsn]

11:30 AM on 03/02/2010

so Bobby, are you arguing for the right to use a tactical nuke as a self defense weapon--kind of hard to justify wiping out several square miles as well as commiting suicide as justifiable self defense--you lost your 'argument' in Heller

[Ifticar2]

08:14 PM on 03/01/2010

The whole house of cards created by years of anti-gun legislation is about to come down.

[billjones224]

08:34 PM on 03/01/2010

Agree!!!

[Sivispacemparabellum]

08:34 PM on 03/01/2010

Yep and it will be a thing of beauty to behold.

[shadowanddaisy]

08:10 PM on 03/01/2010

I live in Chicago and I fully support the hand gun ban. Why?

--How about protection from being shot by stray bullets meant for a gang member; or a gunfight because a drug deal went bad?
--How about limiting the potential of fatal injuries from someone with road rage taking revenge against an imagined slight by another driver? If you’ve ever driven through or around Chicago you know exactly what I’m talking about.
--How about reducing the potential of fatal injury to our Peace Officers when they respond to a domestic disturbance; or when they pull over a driver who potentially has the ability to kill them as they’re walking up to a vehicle.
--How about reducing the potential for injury in a densely populated urban environment? Tempers flair for stupid reasons: it’s too hot; you took my shoveled parking space; you’re looking at my girlfriend/boyfriend; you cut me off at the last stop light, etc.
--How about protection from an ignorant gun owner who can't use the safety on his/her weapon? See Darwin Awards” for further evidence.
--How about reducing the probability of a student of any age bringing a parents' gun to school to show all his/her buddies?

I appreciate there are responsible gun owners throughout the country, and I commend gun owners who take the responsibility of monitoring their weapons. But accidents happen all the time.

The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few – or the one.

[VOTER]

08:12 PM on 03/01/2010

Well said.

Fanned.

[Ifticar2]

08:21 PM on 03/01/2010

Chicago's laws restricting handgun ownership by private citizens have done an outstanding job of reducing gun violence. Right?

You post is of full of "Somebody mights." Whenever you hear someone say "Somebody might" you know that your rights are in danger.

[djcrsn]

10:00 PM on 03/01/2010

I am still trying to figure out why people support the gun bans in DC and Chicago considering how badly they have failed

[CanisLatrans]

07:18 PM on 03/01/2010

The thing to remember is that not every political thought can be easily pigeonholed. There are some conservative/right wing types that don't mind a strong Federal government; and there are some left wing/liberal types that aren't afraid of guns and support gun rights.

It is true that most of the right wing types who get mentioned on the news are the foaming-at-the-mouth state's rights types. But that's because they're the most entertaining. They talk about state's rights but then when you remind them that more and more states are allowing gay marriage, they start melting.

[Pantleg]

07:11 PM on 03/01/2010

Cimms: I probably of a different political persuasion but you are correct the Supreme Court has
ruled on their interpretation of the 2nd amendment and they have said it gives citizens the to
bear arms. The people who are bloging in opposition just don't know what they are talking about.

[mackbolan]

07:21 PM on 03/01/2010

actually my state constitution recognizes that right....and even if the court rules otherwise that ruling would only apply to areas under federal control...

[billjones224]

07:42 PM on 03/01/2010

wrong, that is what this case is all about. The court has already ruled that areas under federal control it is an individual right (Heller). This case is all about if it will be applied across the land.

Heller
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[Ifticar2]

08:22 PM on 03/01/2010

Wrong. The Second Amendment is just as encompassing as the First Amendment.

[Cimms]

09:12 PM on 03/01/2010

Let's see, I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage rights, aethiest who has voted Dem since I became registered. Our political persuasions are probably not very different. Not all defenders of the Second are Righties from Alabama.

I shoot at the range once a week and am actually a range officer. I have grown up with and have shot and owned guns my whole life. I know they are something to be respected, not feared, and I value and will defend the Second Amendment just as vigorously as the rest of them.

Most of these posts are based on fear and ignorance so I try to spread a little truth where I can.