McDonald SCOTUS Decision -- Master Thread

Plowing thriugh the ruling...

For the skeptics

Page 5

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 even handed manner.


(b) Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, theyask 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.

While a win is a win, I would have rather seen 7-2 or even 8-1 instead of 5-4. But I'll take it!

everallm, I think that means strict scrutiny for gun control laws. I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but it seems to me that will be the logical outcome.

What is Mr Obama's take, I wonder...

What is Mr Obama's take, I wonder...

Click to expand...

^LOL!!!

eye5600 said:

It already has. Mayor B said NYC was making changes in the process for giving gun permits in a more equitable manner. The thinking is that if the NYC process was equivalent to a ban, the court could slap their hand after MacDonald (today!), so they shaped up a little bit in advance.

Click to expand...

Sweet!..

And while everyone is celebrating McDonald, freedom took a hit with the decision in Christian Legal Society.

...?

I think what I have heard is the possbility of a lawsuit stating the application of overly onerous laws deprives a person of civil rights under color of law, which I have been told is a criminal case, not civil. This might be what people refer to using to challenge Cali, NJ, NYC, etc.

Click to expand...

This is the answre that I was looking for. Under color of law... I hope to see the permits process go under the knife next since they are just crazy. I guess it's time to just wait and see.

dirtymike, I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal, legal scholar, etc., just an average Joe Sixpack hoping I am right.

Still plowing through the ruling....God I'm glad I'm not the Chicago lawyers, they have not come out of this looking good, SC are less than impressed with ANY of their arguments

As an example

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era. Municipal respondents submit that the Due Process Clause protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’”

Brief for Municipal Respondents 9 (quoting Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 166 U. S., at 238). According to municipal respondents, if it is possible to imagine any civilized legal system that does not recognize a particular right, then the Due Process Clause does not make that right binding on the States.

Brief for Municipal Respondents 9. 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 possess such 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’ argument are stunning.

I wonder how many handguns will be purchased today in Chicago?

I wonder how many handguns will be purchased today in Chicago?

Click to expand...

None. It's still illegal to own a handgun in Chicago for now. Illegal in reality, if legal in theory.

More stinging rebuke and more implication that at the LEAST we get Intermediate/Heightened Intermediate scrutiny

Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents’ argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. As noted by the 38 States that have appeared in this case as amici supporting petitioners, “tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.” Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 23. Municipal respondents and their amici complain that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will lead to extensive and costly litigation, but this argument applies with even greater force to constitutional rights and remedies that have already been held to be binding on the States.



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 judicial interest 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,” Malloy, supra, at 10–11 (internal quotation marks omitted).

None. It's still illegal to own a handgun in Chicago for now. Illegal in reality, if legal in theory.

Click to expand...

What? I haven't read the 200 page document...but I thought that was the whole point of the ruling? Was that it was legal for residents to own handguns? If you didn't already own one, how else would you go about getting one other than buying it? Maybe I'm confused about the laws/ruling here...

Both cases allow the government to regulate with reckless abandon IMO.

Click to expand...

No, both decisions allow the government to REGULATE. And the clear implication is that that regulation can't fundamentally abridge the right.

Would a voting law based on New York City's gun laws pass muster?
How about a similar law regulating speech?

If Daley had merely returned the law to what it was circa 1970, this case would never have been filed and there would be no incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

Megalomaniac anti-gunners are the best allies we could possibly hope for in this fight. They're like Hitler and his "to the last man!" orders. You have to stop and wipe them out as you roll in from the west and east, but you never have to mess with them again, and every time they're a little weaker.

Bring it.

dirtymike, I am NOT a lawyer, paralegal, legal scholar, etc., just an average Joe Sixpack hoping I am right.

Click to expand...

Hahaha I hear that a lot on here. I understand that this discussion is for academic purposes only.

@ JoeMal: The court ruled that Chicago law is unconstitutional, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded (sent back) the case for correction pursuant to its opinion. The courts do not write the law, Illinois still has to change the word of law in its next legislative session before it is legal to purchase/own a handgun in Chicago.

Folks

Remember, the case has been REMANDED back, that means the District ruling stays in place until they re-write to conform to the SC ruling.

Until then all laws stay exactly the same.

It does however mean than any NEW challenges ANYWHERE will have to be heard AND judged under the SC guidance.

The first irretrievable part is that no municipality anywhere in the US can pass any law in the area of 2A that is stronger than that of the state in which it resides, "home rule" at least for 2A is DEAD.

@ JoeMal: The court ruled that Chicago law is unconstitutional, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded (sent back) the case for correction pursuant to its opinion. The courts do not write the law, Illinois still has to change the word of law in its next legislative session before it is legal to purchase/own a handgun in Chicago.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up

Apart from the basic "win," at first blush the most important aspect of the ruling seems to be the notion that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, suggesting that limitations on Second Amendment rights would be subjected to strict scrutiny. In a nutshell, that would mean that to pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

[from Wikipedia]

JoeMal said:

What? I haven't read the 200 page document...but I thought that was the whole point of the ruling? Was that it was legal for residents to own handguns? If you didn't already own one, how else would you go about getting one other than buying it? Maybe I'm confused about the laws/ruling here...

Click to expand...

The decision says that the current law needs to be changed. That hasn't happened yet.

That's why it is still just theoretical. If someone were today go out and buy a handgun and get arrested for it they would still go to jail. The Court says that the all out ban is unconstitutional, not that all gun laws are. Chicago now has to put a system in place to allow for the ownership of handguns. That will probably be an expensive and complicated process. Then THAT is challenged in court, and so on.

It's a long process. Look at Heller, he's already had to file another suit against DC.

So, for gun laws on the books it doesn't do much immediately. What it DOES do is give legislators pause any time they consider implementing any NEW gun laws.

What? I haven't read the 200 page document...but I thought that was the whole point of the ruling? Was that it was legal for residents to own handguns? If you didn't already own one, how else would you go about getting one other than buying it? Maybe I'm confused about the laws/ruling here...

Click to expand...

The lower court decision upholding the ban was remanded by SCOTUS to the lower court for rehearing in line with the SCOTUS decision. That means the ban is dead, or the lower court gets the Darth Vader "You've failed me for the last time!" treatment.

The ban's toast. The only question is just HOW stupid and impotent Daley's response will be. I'm betting it will BLATANTLY violate the ruling and SCOTUS, like an angry cape buffalo, will stomp it and Daley into the ground.

The more lawless and hysterical the response, the better for us, both legally and politically.

Bring it, Little Dick, bring it!

The first irretrievable part is that no municipality anywhere in the US can pass any law in the area of 2A that is stronger than that of the state in which it resides, "home rule" at least for 2A is DEAD.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're getting THAT.

The case had nothing to do with preemption itself.

If Ohio didn't have preemption, and Cleveland wanted to require registration, there's nothing in McDonald which would prevent that.

What it means is that in practice, they can't require registration, then not ALLOW you to register, as Chicago does.