Breaking: Court strikes Chicago handgun ban

posted at 10:41 am on June 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Heller decision now has a sibling.  The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit in a widely-anticipated case that defines the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the case of McDonald v Chicago.  The ruling invalidates Chicago’s ban on handguns and reiterates the Court’s finding that the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution incorporated the Bill of Rights into law binding on the sovereign states:

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue thatMembers of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause,it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner. …

(a)
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.
(b)
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. Pp. 33–40.

The decision came on a 5-4 vote, with the usual suspects on both sides.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in this case, and he dissects the dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, especially the notion that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t address the notion of inequality of power and thus doesn’t qualify under consideration of incorporation under the 14th Amendment:

Second, petitioners and many others who live in high-crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout. The plight of Chicagoans living in high-crime areas was recently highlighted when two Illinois legislators representing Chicago districts called on the Governor to deploy the Illinois National Guard to patrol the City’s streets.31 The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq and that80% of the Chicago victims were black.32 Amici supporting incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms contend that the right is especially important for women and members of other groups that may be especially vulnerable to violent crime.33 If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution for two reasons: self defense and defense against tyranny.  In both cases, it addresses an inequality of power.  The founders never intended to create a police state that would make self-defense unnecessary; indeed, such a state is impossible to achieve anyway, as totalitarian states repeatedly proved during the 20th century.  Even if it were, though, that was hardly the kind of government constructed by the Constitution.  The founders understood that limited government necessitated a citizenry able to defend themselves against criminals and psychopaths, and wrote the amendment to prevent the government from stripping them of their own legitimate defense.

Justice Scalia rips outgoing Justice Stevens in his concurrence:

The next constraint JUSTICE STEVENS suggests is harder to evaluate. 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 judge sare more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences? Attempting to give the concept more precision, JUSTICE STEVENS explains that “sensitivity is an aspect of a deeper principle: the need to approach our work with humility and caution.” Ibid. Both traits are undeniably admirable, though what relation they bear to sensitivity is a mystery. But it makes no difference, for the first case JUSTICE STEVENS cites in support, see ibid., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849, dispels any illusion that he has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.

JUSTICE STEVENS offers no examples to illustrate the next constraint: stare decisis, post, at 25. But his view of it is surely not very confining, since he holds out as a “canonical” exemplar of the proper approach, see post, at 16, 54, Lawrence, which overruled a case decided a mere 17 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), see 539 U. S., at 578 (it “was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today”). Moreover, JUSTICE STEVENS would apply that constraint unevenly: He apparently approves those Warren Court cases that adopted jotfor-jot incorporation of procedural protections for criminal defendants, post, at 11, but would abandon those Warren Court rulings that undercut his approach to substantive rights, on the basis that we have “cut back” on cases from that era before, post, at 12.

In other words, the dissent to both Heller and McDonald appear to be “incorporation for me, but not for thee.”  Once the Court determined that the Constitution and its amendments became incorporated into limitations of state and local law, the 2nd Amendment goes along with it.  That’s not terribly difficult to comprehend, but Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor want to eat their cake and have it, too.  They want to incorporate everything but the 2nd Amendment, and simply put, there is no intellectual basis for that reasoning that doesn’t involve torturing logic on a virtual medieval rack.

Gun bans will be tossed on the ashheap of history, where they belong.

Update: An important note from the AP — the ruling did not explicitly strike the Chicago gun ban, but it will certainly result in the end of it:

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

It also leaves open less draconian measures to control the use of guns in states and cities, such as registration, limitations, and so on.  Flat-out bans, or ridiculously burdensome regulatory regimes that act as de facto bans, won’t pass McDonald muster.

Update II: Glenn Reynolds joins an interesting debate at the New York Times.  Be sure to read his entire essay, but this comment from Michael Bloomberg aide John Feinblatt is typically hyperbolic:

In short, the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but like all rights, it is limited. Just as there is no right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the court has written that there is no right to bring a handgun to a school.

Except that the bans in Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City weren’t on bringing guns into schools.  They banned people from keeping them in their own homes, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You’re not a lawyer, are you?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

You’re not

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

In light of this historical event, we all should watch the embedded video link to the youtube ” I LIKE GUNS ” video in celebration, by Steve Lee.

… I like guns.

tx2654 on June 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Awesome, I feel somehow cheated that I never saw that before.

WhoU4 on June 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM

One can only imagine what this out come would have been with Kagan instead of Kennedy. As Rush said today these justices voted for the 2nd amendment by 5 to 4. How would they vote on the 1st?

inspectorudy on June 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

How would they vote on the 1st?

inspectorudy on June 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Scary.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM

If it’s a close call as to whether the right to own a handgun saves lives or costs lives, then shouldn’t we err on the side of gun rights? Is THAT even close?

Paul-Cincy on June 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

How would they vote on the 1st?

inspectorudy on June 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Scary.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM

No, stupid. The 1st didn’t apply to the states until the 20th century. The U.S. was fine. State Constitutions still protect most of the substantive rights that the Federal Constitution protects.

And of course, it’s you guys that have typically been against incorporation. You’re just now supporting it, when you got an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you like.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

crr- as you know you cannot count on the court to do the right thing always. but way to get us on your side-stupid. You’re a dingbat.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

when you got an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you like.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Actually dingbat we find relief that the court by a slim margin held for the 2nd friggin amendment. Yes it is scary that it only was by a vote of 5-4. That should scare anyone EVEN you-the dimmest of wits.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Crr but let us put our differences aside and celebrate a win for the great people of this country.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Sheesh I cannot resist. CRR YOU fukin dimwit . THE 2nd AMENDMENDMENT is one of the most basic rights-that is why we support it. Nice try with the diversion. Incorporate this.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Or even an amendment. Dimwit

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Then explain the Militia Acts of 1792?

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Then explain the Militia Acts of 1792?

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM

How about you make a fully developed positive argument for your position before I explain anything?

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Holger yes -believe Crr- you know she was right -err I mean wrong on the Corporations and Free Speech decision and right well errrrr wrong on both 2nd amendment decisions…..yes you should listen…I mean not listen to her.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

The faux law school student keeps losing…hmmmmm

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Holger yes -believe Crr- you know she was right -err I mean wrong on the Corporations and Free Speech decision and right well errrrr wrong on both 2nd amendment decisions…..yes you should listen…I mean not listen to her.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

How was I wrong? I predicted that all 3 of those decisions would come out the way they did. They weren’t a surprise to anyone, really.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

The Militia Acts of 1792 required citizens to buy a musket or rifle at their expense and then store it in their home. It also required them to join the Militia (either as Organized or Unorganized). In effect, it forced the Citizenry to be armed.

If the States were fully allowed under the Law to bar the Citizenry to the possession of Arms and the Founding Fathers intended the States to be able to do that, why did they Pass the Militia Acts of 1792 through Congress and why did Washington sign it into Law?

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 7:35 PM

They weren’t a surprise to anyone, really.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

But you disagree with all three . So yeh you’re wrong. Tell me again about the commerce clause. You’re an idiot. blah blah blah.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM

But you disagree with all three . So yeh you’re wrong.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM

You disagree with Roe v. Wade. So yeh you’re wrong.

Also, you’re an idiot.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Crr good comeback.

/

Getting testy. You keep losing and America keeps winning. Thank God.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Presumably you got that from some sort of weird website, but you’ll have to explain it better because I honestly have no idea what your point is supposed to be.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Presumably you got that from some sort of weird website, but you’ll have to explain it better because I honestly have no idea what your point is supposed to be.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Don’t blame the teacher if you’re holding the honors class back.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Don’t blame the teacher if you’re holding the honors class back.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Sheesh. I’ve downed three Maker’s and even *I* got your point.

JohnTant on June 28, 2010 at 8:01 PM

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Then you are lost. The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed during the last term of Washington’s Presidency. It required every citizen to buy a musket or rifle at their expense and have it in their own home, not in some armory but in their own possession.

Yet, you claimed that before the 14th Amendment, the States could deny citizens of that state the Bill of Rights, including the ownership of Firearms…

How do you fit that Square peg into that round hole?

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 8:01 PM

This is a damned interesting thread.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Suck it up, libs. This one time, it didn’t go your way. Deal with it like adults, please.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Like me. ;>)

Heh heh heh.

hillbillyjim on June 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Here’s my argument for anyone who doesn’t believe that the Bill of Rights as enumerated absolutely guarantees my right to bear arms.

Come try and take them.

hawkdriver on June 28, 2010 at 9:10 PM

Weird how when the right to have a gun , the right to free speech, and the right to worship are all specifically spelled out in the Constitution the know it alls scoff while at the same time going on about the right to an abortion and separation of church and state which ARE NOT explicit in the Constitution.

CRR you are the IDIOT.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Anybody else notice that crr6 leaves and Jimbo3 arrives, then later Jimbo3 leaves and crr6 arrives? Have they ever posted at the same time?

Hmm…

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Considering one is a faux lawyer and the other a faux law student you gotta wonder.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Considering one is a faux lawyer and the other a faux law student you gotta wonder.

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM

One thing’s for sure: they’re both so much smarter than everyone else.

hillbillyjim on June 28, 2010 at 10:16 PM

“Weird how when the right to have a gun , the right to free speech, and the right to worship are all specifically spelled out in the Constitution the know it alls scoff while at the same time going on about the right to an abortion and separation of church and state which ARE NOT explicit in the Constitution.”

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM
————————————————————

It’s all word-games with those people in their quest to gain power and transform society to their liking.

They use words like “penumbra” [meaning "in the shadows"] to describe a Constitutional-right that THEY think should be there but is not actually written on the parchment. It’s all a part of their “living and breathing” Constitutional philosophy.

The Constitution IS living and breathing in fact that it can be amended, but they don’t want to bother with all the troublesome stuff, like letting the voters actually vote on the amendments. It takes WAY too long and the elite don’t trust us “great unwashed” making those decisions for our future.

The good news is that we helped to protect a basic God-given right. The bad news is that only did by a 5-4 vote. That is scary!!!

shorebird on June 28, 2010 at 10:25 PM

And of course, it’s you guys that have typically been against incorporation. You’re just now supporting it, when you got an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you like.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

I KNEW you and Narutoboy were the same clown! It all makes sense now!

Seriously, if you had no idea what you were talking about, it would be a step up.

Merovign on June 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Can a city or state
Outlaw habeas corpus, Right to jury trail,Right for women and blacks to vote? I don’t think so.

What makes someone think that outlawing the 2nd amendment is any different.

And you can also shout FIRE!
If the build is not actually on fire and people get hurt then , you make have charges brought against you but, it won’t be for the act of saying a word.

TheSitRep on June 28, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I find it near unimaginable that this was such a slim margin vote. There are fewer more obviously and clearly worded sections of the Constitution – and 4 liberal nitwits who damn well know what it means simply don’t give a crap and vote to subvert the Constitution for political ideology.

This country is truly f00ked in the long run at this rate.

Midas on June 28, 2010 at 11:16 PM

I am sure the elected officials here in Washington DC will not be pleased with SCOTUS’ decision…

Mmm mmm mmm…

Khun Joe on June 28, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Considering that dred scott was a reversal of barron….

I am also curious about the assertion that “typical posters” here stand against incorporation of individual rights.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 12:28 AM

I hate to break it to everyone but don’t get too excited about this ruling. I received a forwarded email last week(sorry I deleted it) about some UN legislation Hillary signed for Obamalinsky last week. They signed a treaty (UN) that basically puts our gun laws under the UN, meaning we have to turn them in. Step 1 of a 3 step process. It will end with voluntarily turning them in and then it’s door to door. Obamakov has no problem going around Congress as he becomes America’s version of Chavez. I hope I’m wrong on this but it was a viral email with lots of forwarding going on….I guess all I’ll have left to cling to is the Bible. Hussein will probably want me to turn that in as well in exchange for a fresh Koran like the one he memorized in that Madrassa…..

adamsmith on June 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

“I find it near unimaginable that this was such a slim margin vote. There are fewer more obviously and clearly worded sections of the Constitution – and 4 liberal nitwits who damn well know what it means simply don’t give a crap and vote to subvert the Constitution for political ideology.

This country is truly f00ked in the long run at this rate.”

Midas on June 28, 2010 at 11:16 PM
————————————————————

Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of the the word ‘is’ is.”

And yes! an elected President, in a court of law, [supposedly a member of the bar] and under oath, actually argued the meaning of the word “is.”

LOL! They’re like ambulance-chasing lawyers doing anything they can to make money, gain power or promote their radical causes. Your precious Constitution is just a bunch of words that we can bandy about and twist to whatever they want to achieve. For example, the word “is.”

Just imagine, the words “the people” send these folks into a tornado!!!

shorebird on June 29, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Bambi & Co have been the best gun salesmen in history. C. 2M + since 9/08. Ammo is still in short supply, particularly pistol (despise this “handgun” BS). In a rational world, the people are stocking up against a perceived scarcity. That scarcity is rule of law.

Who was that f’n Cuban who talked about the muzzle of a gun? He was real good against defenseless folk.

Keep on with the property confiscation and that 360 degree turn will commence. Even Mexico cannot help then.

Caststeel on June 29, 2010 at 1:52 AM

BTW Excellent analysis Ed. Thanks

Caststeel on June 29, 2010 at 1:58 AM

No, stupid. The 1st didn’t apply to the states until the 20th century. The U.S. was fine. State Constitutions still protect most of the substantive rights that the Federal Constitution protects.

And of course, it’s you guys that have typically been against incorporation. You’re just now supporting it, when you got an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you like.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Yes, and your side was gung-ho for incorporation, but suddenly against it because of an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that they don’t like.

What amazing principles!

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:09 AM

Yes, keep clinging to this strange theory. It’s helping you in this debate.

blink on June 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Hey, any minute now crr6 will link to people on this site arguing that the States should be able to deny the rights of free speech/religion, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment and so on. I mean, otherwise she’d be a liar, and law studnets never lie.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:12 AM

How was I wrong? I predicted that all 3 of those decisions would come out the way they did. They weren’t a surprise to anyone, really.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Sure you did, princess. Links to your predictions?

We’ll wait with baited breath.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:14 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:12 AM

crr6 would have you believe that before the 14th Amendment, the States could do anything they wish.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM

You disagree with Roe v. Wade. So yeh you’re wrong.

So all pro-lifers are wrong? Huh. Some of them elected your golden boy, idiot.

Also, you’re an idiot.

crr6 on June 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

No, you’re an idiot.

Glad to see you’ve descended to your normal level of discourse.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2010 at 8:37 AM

adamsmith on June 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

It has to pass the senate to become law, which it never would. This is a cynical sop to the far left.

Akzed on June 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Considering that dred scott was a reversal of barron….

I am also curious about the assertion that “typical posters” here stand against incorporation of individual rights.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Here ya go.

As much as I’d prefer the ‘purity’ of the Court revisiting the doctrine of incorporation, I’ll concede Revenant is right, it ain’t gonna happen.

Firefly_76 on October 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM

I find it amusing that a substantial majority of the 2nd Amendment guys here who are members of the Lost Cause Coalition (states-righters) are suddenly 14th Amendment afficionados (federal rights trump the state).

My response: Welcome!

unclesmrgol on September 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Sure you did, princess. Links to your predictions?

We’ll wait with baited breath.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:14 AM

Sometimes normal people say and do things that aren’t recorded on the internet.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM

crr6 would have you believe that before the 14th Amendment, the States could do anything they wish.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Why was yesterdays court decision even necessary? If, as you argue, the 2nd amendment has always applied to the states.

And have you read Barron v. Baltimore yet. Please do so before posting again.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM

The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner. …

Music to my ears

The great disease of our current society is selective application of the law. In this case, a Bill of Rights where some Rights are more protected than other Rights

The arguments, pro and con whether a citizen needs a gun for a particular defense is a diversion from the reality of this constitutional right: a citizen does not have to prove a need to obtain this right. It is a right he should be able to exercise without a proof of need

‘Need’ to exercise this right is subjective. Especially when the need might be self defense from tyranny, the tyrant is the last entity qualified to determine whether the victim has a need for a weapon

Geo Bush was not a full respecter of law, but he did us all a great service with his choice of judges

I am grateful we still have good men to defend our liberties

Inalienable rights!

I offer my appreciation and humble gratitude for the good justices’ work on this case

entagor on June 29, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Hey, any minute now crr6 will link to people on this site arguing that the States should be able to deny the rights of free speech/religion, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment and so on. I mean, otherwise she’d be a liar, and law studnets never lie.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:12 AM

You’re creating a strawman, of course. Your argument wasn’t that States should be able to outright deny those rights (indeed, many if not all of those rights are included in every State Constitution). Your federalist argument was that each individual state should be able to define the nature and scope of those rights, rather than having local differences extirpated in favor of a single, nationally applicable rule.

Also, you guys often pointed out that substantive due process is made-up judicial activism. Presumably you still agree with that. After all, the right to abortion is based off of substantive due process.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Crr6, we all know that you are a proud member of the Party of Death. There is no need to bring up abortion to try to buttress your failed arguments.

Justice Alito:

It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

The case has been heard. The opinion stated. Quit whining.

kingsjester on June 29, 2010 at 10:32 AM

How scary is it that this decision was 5-4? I mean, i can read. I know what the 2nd and 10th amendments say. I assume our justices are far smarter and more logical than myself. But yet four of them are clearly ignorant of our constitution. Either they exist in a fantasy world or they are really stupid. Not sure which direction i’m leaning.

tflst5 on June 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Why was yesterdays court decision even necessary? If, as you argue, the 2nd amendment has always applied to the states.

And have you read Barron v. Baltimore yet. Please do so before posting again.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I disagree with the 14th Amendment route. The 2nd applied from the very get go.

Look up the Militia Acts of 1792. Then look up the Militia Act of 1903. There are acts that date after the 1903 Militia Act so Read 10USC311.

Every person in the US Military in a position of combat has at the very minimum, carries a pistol.

The 2nd Always applied. The Decision reiterated that fact though they took a route I disagreed with.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Why was yesterdays court decision even necessary? If, as you argue, the 2nd amendment has always applied to the states.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Because Chicago and Illinois were VIOLATING the clear language of the Constitution. God, I can’t believe I have to explain the obvious to someone who wants us all to believe she’s a damn law student. Calling you an idiot is an insult to idiots. Just read what you wrote, then think about it. Maybe the light will dawn on you just how dumb you appear to be (but I doubt it).

runawayyyy on June 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I disagree with the 14th Amendment route. The 2nd applied from the very get go.

Look up the Militia Acts of 1792. Then look up the Militia Act of 1903. There are acts that date after the 1903 Militia Act so Read 10USC311.

Every person in the US Military in a position of combat has at the very minimum, carries a pistol.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM

huh? Are you switching sides now and arguing in favor of my position? The acts you referred to required Americans to bear arms for purposes of being in a Militia…which is consistent with the 2nd amendment being a “collective right”, not an individual right.

If you could cite some Congressional act which allowed or required Americans to have guns in their homes for private, individual purposes of self-defense, you might have a point. But of course you can’t do that.

The 2nd Always applied.
Holger on June 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, but just know that no serious legal or constitutional scholar agrees with you. There’s plenty of evidence the BOR was originally meant to restrain just the federal government, and not the states. Indeed, the 1st amendment itself begins by saying “Congress shall make no law”.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Because Chicago and Illinois were VIOLATING the clear language of the Constitution. God, I can’t believe I have to explain the obvious to someone who wants us all to believe she’s a damn law student..

runawayyyy on June 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I’m glad you guys think that substantive due process is in the “clear language of the Constitution.” I’ll remember that for future reference.

; )

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Sure you did, princess. Links to your predictions?

We’ll wait with baited breath.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 5:14 AM

Sometimes normal people say and do things that aren’t recorded on the internet.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Oh man, this is great. A quick google search reveals that I actually did predict the decision here on HA…in fact I even predicted Scalia’s vote and his selected method of incorporation…

One of my pet peeves in LS is how much kids idolize Scalia. Yeah he’s brilliant, and he’s more intellectually honest then pretty much anyone else on the court but he’s human. When the chips are down, he can be just as much of a political hack as anyone else.

Exhibit #3048 of that will be his inevitable embrace of substantive due process in order to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:21 AM

How does that crow taste B+?

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Unless you’re attempting to claim that it was only necessary because SCOTUS had yet to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states.

blink on June 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Yeah, that’s the idea there champ. Holger is arguing that the 2nd amendment already applied to the states. I pointed out that if that were true, yesterdays decision would not be necessary.

Side note: could you post something somewhat interesting? Your ankle-biting on minor points is tedious.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

being a “collective right”, not an individual right.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

You are an idiot of the highest order. I didn’t know Law School had such low standards, or were you an Affirmative Action case?

Okay, lets pretend the 2nd is a Collective Right. Now, start requiring people to give up all their firearms. Where is the collective right? Let me guess, in an armory under Government lock and key? You have just legislated the Collective Right right out the Window and into non-existence.

How then would the people be able to resist Government over-reach if the means of ultimate resistance is taken from them? What would be stopping the Federal Government from ignoring protests and steam-rolling over the people?

Oh wait, you are a Leftist, you love the idea of Tyrannical Government.

I take it you think the Right of the People means a collective right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

.

Guess what, you yourself no longer have the right to expect security in your possession and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Federal Government. But you have a ‘collective right’ what ever that means, whatever protection that gives you (an individual) from unreasonable searches and seizures.

If you could cite some Congressional act which allowed or required Americans to have guns in their homes for private, individual purposes of self-defense, you might have a point. But of course you can’t do that.

Defense of your self is an entirely voluntary act. You can lay down and let the guy rape you or grab your gun and blow his brains out. Government can not dictate those actions to you. Just in the same way Government cannot demand you place your life at risk for another (Good Samaritan Laws).

But hey, guess what, Local Law Enforcement has no requirement to come to your aid. They cannot be held legally liable if they fail to respond.

So, Government takes away your right to defend yourself, but then doesn’t take defending you seriously… Wow, what a nice Progressive government you got there. Government of the Shaft but not the Elevator.

I take it you think the people have a right to Defend themselves against violent criminals with strongly worded letters and spit wads?

Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, but just know that no serious legal or constitutional scholar agrees with you. There’s plenty of evidence the BOR was originally meant to restrain just the federal government, and not the states. Indeed, the 1st amendment itself begins by saying “Congress shall make no law”.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Then, please explain why the States didn’t protest the Militia Acts of 1793.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Comment Monster is eating my post.

being a “collective right”, not an individual right.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

You are an idiot of the highest order. I didn’t know Law School had such low standards?

Okay, lets pretend the 2nd is a Collective Right. Now, start requiring people to give up all their firearms. Where is the collective right? Let me guess, in an armory under Government lock and key? You have just legislated the Collective Right right out the Window and into non-existence.

How then would the people be able to prevent Government over-reach if the means of ultimate redress is taken from them? What would be stopping the Federal Government from ignoring protests and steam-rolling over the people?

Oh wait, you are a Leftist, you love the idea of such government.

I take it you think the Right of the People implies a collective right. Then explain whether or not the Right to Protest and Petition in the 1st Amendment, as well as 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are a ‘Collective’ Right or an Individual right.

If you could cite some Congressional act which allowed or required Americans to have guns in their homes for private, individual purposes of self-defense, you might have a point. But of course you can’t do that.

Defense of your self from a criminal is an entirely voluntary act. Government cannot dictate actions such as that, that is why Good Samaritan Laws have been struck down.

Local Law Enforcement has no requirement to come to your aid. They cannot be held legally liable if they fail to respond. And you are arguing to take away the best means people have at their disposal to protect their own lives and property?

Are you going to compensate the people by offering them a licensed and armed security guard to watch over them?

Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, but just know that no serious legal or constitutional scholar agrees with you. There’s plenty of evidence the BOR was originally meant to restrain just the federal government, and not the states. Indeed, the 1st amendment itself begins by saying “Congress shall make no law”.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Then, please explain the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of the Militia Acts of 1792.

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Side note: could you post something somewhat interesting? Your ankle-biting on minor points is tedious.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Said the bee to the flower, “Stop your buzzing!”

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM

How does that crow taste B+?

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM

You predicted Scalia would rule in favor in this case, not that SCOTUS would. Pretty bold prediction there, sunshine. Hey, I predict the sun will come up tomorrow, I know, it’s dicey, but I have faith.

Once again, you’re a liar and a hack.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, but just know that no serious legal or constitutional scholar agrees with you. There’s plenty of evidence the BOR was originally meant to restrain just the federal government, and not the states. Indeed, the 1st amendment itself begins by saying “Congress shall make no law”.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Funny, I can’t find anything about “Congress shall make no law” in regards to the second amendment. Must be more phantom language they only allow law students to see.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 12:38 PM

huh? Are you switching sides now and arguing in favor of my position? The acts you referred to required Americans to bear arms for purposes of being in a Militia…which is consistent with the 2nd amendment being a “collective right”, not an individual right.

If you could cite some Congressional act which allowed or required Americans to have guns in their homes for private, individual purposes of self-defense, you might have a point. But of course you can’t do that.

But do militias have free speech rights? Obviously not in crr-world, because they’re just like filthy corporations, which don’t deserve free speech.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Re: Idiots and intent:

Intent and Purpose, in quotes

Is there contrary evidence to the Individual Rights interpretation?

What did the founder mean by “the people?”

You know, some people are incapable of learning. crr6 in particular will ignore, deflect, twist, bend, shuck and jive, and come back next week claiming that the founders only intended the Bill of Rights to apply to Congress, despite all documentary and even simple logical evidence to the contrary.

Dude needs a Scarlet “L” on his username.

Merovign on June 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM

The Militia Acts of 1792 were passed during the last term of Washington’s Presidency. It required every citizen to buy a musket or rifle at their expense and have it in their own home, not in some armory but in their own possession.

The Militia Acts of 1792 did not require every citizen to buy a musket or rifle, just each and every free able-bodied white male citizen…who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years.

Yet, you claimed that before the 14th Amendment, the States could deny citizens of that state the Bill of Rights, including the ownership of Firearms…
How do you fit that Square peg into that round hole?
Holger on June 28, 2010 at 8:01 PM

The States have a history of denying the Bill of Rights (including firearms), before and after the 14th Amendment, to certain individuals.

Prior to the 13th Amendment, States denied the BOR to certain individuals by denying these individuals the status of citizen.

After passage of the 13th Amendment, the States denied certain individuals the BOR via black codes.

After passage of the 14th Amendment, States denied certain individuals the BOR via Jim Crow Laws and specifically firearms via gun restrictions.

Tennessee’s 1879 Army and Navy law effectively limited gun ownership to those that already possessed Civil War revolvers.

rukiddingme on June 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I am also curious about the assertion that “typical posters” here stand against incorporation of individual rights.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Here ya go.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Great job. You found one person. The other that you quoted was making the same silly claim as you.

blink on June 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM

To be fair, in that thread, ex-libris argued vociferously against incorporation, however firefly,chaz, and washjeff took the approach that incorporation was not the “preferable”. Of course, much to crr4.0′s chagrin that infers they believe it is still an acceptable approach. Most of the rest of the thread was split between two topics; bankrupt idea of “collective” rights, and the idea that incorporation is redundant when discussing a fundamental/enumerated right.

But hey….one out of 5 pages of comments means “most of us”…funny, but I haven’t see ex-libris here yet.

I did like the way the thread ended however. I suggest that nelsons comment was a significantly better characterization of the arguments made in that thread than crr’s.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 4:45 PM

btw….having just read/skimmed the decision Clarence Thomas is my new hero.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Then a quote should have been easy to find.

blink on June 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM

It was early in the thread

Yeah, it’s good news, I suppose leaving out the fact that Incorporation is a flawed and disastrous doctrine that completely neutered meaningful federalism on several key levels.

But, that aside, since Incorporation will never be overruled, ever, we might as well use it, too.

exlibris on September 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Further on he continued to attack the the doctrine. I interpreted his last statement in this post not as grudging acceptance but only as “fighting fire with fire”, and saw the responses of washjeff, chaz, and firefly as more open to its use.

But yes…I made a better argument as a devils advocate for crr than crr herself made.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Side note: could you post something somewhat interesting? Your ankle-biting on minor points is tedious.

crr6 on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Tantamount to Dave Rywall telling others not to circumvent the foul language filter with symbols in place of letters.

Inanemergencydial on June 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Breyer is either senile, a hoplophobe, or his strings are being pulled by the puppet masters. His pathetic opinion is below with answers.

From the decision, Breyer dissenting;

“Consider too that countless gun regulations of manyshapes and sizes are in place in every State and in manylocal communities. Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? Yes. To the car? Yes To work? Yes What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Yes Rifles? Yes Semiautomatic weapons? Yes When is a gun semi-automatic? When the next round is automatically chamber and the hammer is cocked when the weapon is fired, but another trigger pull is required to fire that next round. Duh. Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? The law already recognizes that the response must be comensurate with the threat. Does time-of-day matter? No Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Not to the right. Does the pres-ence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Not his mere presence, and not to the right. Do police need special rules permitting pat downs designed to find guns? The rules are already in place. When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? Always. Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Legal, yes; illegal, no. Prior drug offenders? That would be a matter of State policy, but generally, yes. Prior alcohol abusers? That would be a matter of State policy, but generally, yes. How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies? None whatsoever. The people need to protect themselves MORE during emergencies. As the questions suggest, state and local gun regulation can become highly complex, and these “are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”

Are you ******** me? Did he seriously ask that question? DO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXTEND OUTSIDE OF THE HOME?

See yer honor, that wasn’t so hard now was it?

riverrat10k on June 30, 2010 at 12:16 AM

Breaking: Court strikes Chicago handgun ban

It’s also worth noting that this headline is completely incorrect. The Court didn’t strike down the gun control laws at issue. They just remanded the cases back to the lower courts to determine whether the laws were constitutional, in light of the Court’s finding that 2nd amendment applies to the states. AP really should write all the legal posts.

crr6 on June 30, 2010 at 1:05 AM

But yes…I made a better argument as a devils advocate for crr than crr herself made.

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Indeed, you did. Apparently. you have a lot more time on your hands.

You predicted Scalia would rule in favor in this case, not that SCOTUS would.

No, you disingenuous little creep, I did predict SCOTUS would incorporate the amendment. I said Scalia would embrace substantive due process “in order to apply the amendment”. That’s exactly what happened. You’re trying to weasel and squirm your way out of another smack down, as per usual.

Pretty bold prediction there, sunshine.

Good Solid B-Plus on June 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Actually, it was, if you’d read Scalia’s prior opinions on substantive due process. Then again, it wasn’t if you were aware that Scalia is actually a political hack who doesn’t give a cr*p about ideological consistency.

crr6 on June 30, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4