We Won McDonald 5-4

[Stevepk]

Fox News just reported we won McDonald

[Yas]

 

 

Now Lets see where Alan files now.

[templar223]

On DRUDGE right now!

[templar223]

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GKARU01&show_article=1

 

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Jun 28 10:13 AM US/Eastern

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.

 

The justices on Monday cast doubt on a Chicago area handgun ban, but also signaled in their 5-4 decision that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

[Conservative1]

I also just saw it on FOX...wow...I have a lump in my throat the size of TX! One step closer...wow! We the People...maybe things really will be allright.

[templar223]

Given the national significance of this, let's direct comments to the thread in National Politics.

 

John

[Tvandermyde]

A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstratesclearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamentalrights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty. Pp. 22–33.

 

[Tvandermyde]

"The right to keep and bear arms was considered no lessfundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. ".....

 

"This is surely powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here.This understanding persisted in the years immediatelyfollowing the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In addition

 

to the four States that had adopted Second Amendment analogues before ratification, nine more States adopted state constitutional provisions protecting an individualright to keep and bear arms between 1789 and 1820. Heller, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 27–30). Founding-eralegal commentators confirmed the importance of the rightto early Americans. St. George Tucker, for example, described the right to keep and bear arms as "the true palladium of liberty" and explained that prohibitions on the right would place liberty "on the brink of destruction." 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, Editor’s App. 300 (S. Tuckered. 1803); see also W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 125–126 (2d ed. 1829) (reprint 2009); 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitutionof the United States §1890, p. 746 (1833) ("The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation andarbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them"). " pg 221-22

 

[Tvandermyde]

Evidence from the period immediately following theratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirmsthat the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: "Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty." "The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question."Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1967. And in debatingthe Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South. See Halbrook, Freedmen 120–131.

 

pg 29

 

[Tvandermyde]

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents contend that Congress, in the years immediately following the Civil War, merely sought to outlaw "discriminatory measures taken against freedmen, which it addressed by adopting a non-discrimination principle" and that even anoutright ban on the possession of firearms was regarded as acceptable, "so long as it was not done in a discriminatorymanner." Brief for Municipal Respondents 7. They arguethat Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment "as an antidiscrimination rule," and they cite statements to the effect that the section would outlaw discriminatory measures. Id., at 64. This argument is implausible. First, while §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains"an antidiscrimination rule," namely, the Equal Protection Clause, municipal respondents can hardly mean that §1 does no more than prohibit discrimination. If that were so, then the First Amendment, as applied to the States,would not prohibit nondiscriminatory abridgments of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion; the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States, would not prohibit all unreasonable searches and seizures but onlydiscriminatory searches and seizures—and so on. We assume that this is not municipal respondents’ view, sowhat they must mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.

 

[Bitter]

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald @ 44 (emphasis added)

 

 

Well, there it is - a fundamental right. Fundamental rights get strict scrutiny. Though the words "strict scrutiny" were not used in Heller or McDonald, the 7th Circuit will almost certainly apply the concept of strict scrutiny because fundamental rights analysis is invoked. Heller left much to be desired because it did not come out and say point blank that the 2nd Amendment was a fundamental right, it kind of danced around the subject and used the language of fundamental rights. Here, we have the Court stating that Heller did, in fact, decide that the right was fundamental. The restrictions that Heller said would stand were ones that would almost certainly pass strict scrutiny, ie felons in possession. To meet strict scrutiny, a law must exhibit a "compelling government interest," the restriction must be "narrowly tailored" to supporting the interest, and the law must use the "least restrictive means" in achieving the goal. See US v. Carolene Products.

 

Some gun restrictions will meet even that test, as stated in Heller. Heller stated that it did not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever. This is absolutely true under strict scrutiny in the same way that the 1st Amendment does not support the right of one to speak any words, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.

 

A total ban, however, will not meet this standard, as in Heller. Some may be confused as to why the Court remanded in McDonald. It is because Heller already spoke to the issue of blanket bans and the Court needed not revisit the issue. They just said go apply Heller. That is to be done in the lower court.

 

Did I mention FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

[Jeff Johnson]

My heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Otis McDonald and the plaintifs in this case. I'm waiting for the reaction from Daley and VPC to help me guage the extent of our win. Yes, a win is a win, but was this a baby-step victory or a first round knock-out type win?

[GarandFan]

As if we didn't already know where Sotomayor stood on this issue. When she was in the hot-seat, she proclaimed that "Heller is settled law" and now ... she is unwilling to accept its conclusions.

 

I hope to heck that Kagan gets seriously grilled ... (but am sad that it likely won't matter).

[Tvandermyde]

Therefore, the municipal respondents continue, because such countries as England,Canada, Australia, Japan, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and New Zealand either ban or severely limit handgun ownership, it must follow that no right to possesssuch weapons is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 21–23.

 

This line of argument is, of course, inconsistent with the long-established standard we apply in incorporation cases.See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. And the present-day implications of municipal respondents’ argumentare stunning. For example, many of the rights that our Bill of Rights provides for persons accused of criminaloffenses are virtually unique to this country pg 34

 

can you say B.... slapped

 

[GarandFan]

can you say B.... slapped

 

Yes ... I can. And in this case it sounds WONDERFUL!

[Jeff Johnson]

From another site:

Illinois is now only one governor and one mayor away from being a free second amendment state.

[Druid]

[Tvandermyde]

Municipal respondents assert that, although most state constitutions protect firearms rights, state courts have held that these rights are subject to "interest-balancing" and have sustained a variety of restrictions. Brief for Municipal Respondents 23–31. In Heller, however, we expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicialinterest balancing, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 62–63), and this Court decades ago abandoned "the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights," pg 39

 

ouch ! ! ! !

 

[Yas]

Nothing out of Shortshanks yet.

 

http://mayor.cityofchicago.org/mayor/en/press_room/press_releases.html

[SirMatthew]

I know the Chicago gun case was filed literally within minutes of the Heller decision. Within minutes of the ruling today Daley was discussing how to get around it with new ordinances. Surely there are some pro-rights lawsuits waiting in the wings which will be filed today, if not already.

 

Is ISRA, GOA, NRA, or anyone else filing (or planning to file) anything to push this further with a challenge to the IL version of the 2A (e.g. subject to police power), a demand for RTC, challenging the FOID, etc? After all, can the FOID be constitutional if we have to pay to exercise a fundamental right? Is not "bear" part of the fundamental right that was incorporated against the states today? Can a state Constitution be more restrictive in 2A wording than the BOR wording which has now been incorporated against the states?

[Nomad]

YES!!!

[eric2281]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words....

 

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p24/EricWillman/safr2.jpg

[Nomad]

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mcdonaldopinion08-1521.pdf

[gravyboy77]

Here's what SCC posted on their blog:

It seems City Hall took delivery of 30 or 40 oxygen canisters early this AM. Daley is in full hyperventilation mode, blaming guns guns guns and attempting to ram through a whole bunch of delaying tactics or blatantly illegal ordinances that will accomplish nothing but wasting taxpayer dollars - which as we all know are few and far between nowadays.

 

Give it up Shanks - we can't protect everyone all the time and you are actively seeking to create more casualties as the city spirals into Detroit II. Give law abiding citizens a fair chance to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.

http://secondcitycop...el/gun%20issues

[asfried1]

Mayor Daley on why Chicago needs strict firearms regulations:

 

"What does a first-responder [do when they] come to your home, if you have 50 guns and you pointed a gun at your wife? You have a legal right to a gun," the mayor said.

 

Can we interfere with that display of a gun if youve shown it to somebody in your home? Of course not because everybody wants to sue the city. They want to sue you, the taxpayers, to try to get money out of your pocket…Thats what were worried about."

 

I seriously think Daley is getting demented (medically). Does this quote sound like it came from someone who is unimpaired?

[SirMatthew]

I know why the police, EMS, and fire department are called "first responders", but the victim is actually the first responder. If the real first responder could deal with the situation effectively there would be far less danger to the "second responders" when they arrive several minutes later.

[Yas]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words....

 

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p24/EricWillman/safr2.jpg

I'm still shocked you made it up there and weren't escorted from the building.....

[SmershAgent]

Is it currently normal procedure for paramedics and firefighters to look up all the known residents of the address to which they're responding in order to determine if any of them have a pre-1982 registered pistol?

 

Presumably police might do this before serving a warrant, but if their suspect doesn't own a registered gun, I cannot fathom they just stroll onto the premises confident that they'll be in no danger.

 

I know Daley's alleged concern for first responders is a steaming crock of sh9t, but it's also insulting to anyone who spends more than 3 seconds thinking through his assertions.

[eric2281]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words....

 

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p24/EricWillman/safr2.jpg

I'm still shocked you made it up there and weren't escorted from the building.....

 

Thats nikkroxx78 in the pic, taken by bushrat. I too am surprised they werent thrown out of the bldg. Great pic though!

[Ol'Coach]

Is it currently normal procedure for paramedics and firefighters to look up all the known residents of the address to which they're responding in order to determine if any of them have a pre-1982 registered pistol?

 

Presumably police might do this before serving a warrant, but if their suspect doesn't own a registered gun, I cannot fathom they just stroll onto the premises confident that they'll be in no danger.

 

I know Daley's alleged concern for first responders is a steaming crock of sh9t, but it's also insulting to anyone who spends more than 3 seconds thinking through his assertions.

 

I would imagine that nothing would change, in the sense that "first responders" would approach a location exactly as they do now, same as patrol officers would approach a stopped vehicle as they do now...at least according to what LEOs I have talked to tell me. Knowing that friendly citizens would now be allowed to exercise their natural right doesn't change the fact that not all stops/responses would not be directed toward "friendly citizens"!