McDonald ET AL., v. City of Chicago SCOTUS ruling in favor of 2nd...Woo Hoo

[feddoc]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The federally protected right to bear arms applies to state and local governments.

Their opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense.

 

[Pugs]

I wasn't happy with the 5-4 vote but I'm certainly happy about the outcome.

IMO the dissenting opinion was damn weak and I loved Alito's slamming of it.

 

[statesman]

Just saw this being reported on CNN.... Definitely happy about it...

 

[The Chief]

.... 5-4 vote ......

A five to four vote. Saw an interesting article from a left leaning newspaper, that said, inter alia, that 5 conservatives voted to uphold citizens' rights and 4 liberals voted against citizens' rights. Am I on track in believing that liberals do not support individuals' constitutional rights? Where is Ms. Kagan when we need her?

 

[A4sForever]

"[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The Supreme Court , finally -- Fuckin'-A (added for emphasis ) held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live..."

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]I wonder how 'anywhere they live' might be expanded and/or interpreted in the future .. ?? One can only hope ... [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]The usual suspects: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive - quite literally - to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."[/FONT]

The dissent?? Childish reasoning. I cannot believe some of it emanated from the 'finest' legal minds in the country. It's almost as if the dissenting Justices had their script written by gun-ban organizations. Wait a minute ... you don't think .... naaaaaahhhhhh ... that's ridiculous. :icon_wink

Funny ... some of the media tried to paint Sotomayor as 'reasonable' on gun laws ... huh, now who could know she'd vote this way ... ??? I wonder how a Justice Kagan might vote in the future ... ??? Any takers ... ???

Justice Alito noted: [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"The declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]'Devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values'??? You mean politicians will have to actually 'think' and come up with 'real' solutions to problems in their midst instead of going for the quick & easy & worthless ?? What a concept!!!

I think we see who the 'good guys' are in this ongoing battle of Cops & Robbers -- and it ain't the '4' in the 5-4 vote ... [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Keep the faith: November's comin' ... and then there's another one in two years, I hea-yah ... ??? [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Flugelman]

Justice Alito noted: [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"The declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]'Devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values'??? You mean politicians will have to actually 'think' and come up with 'real' solutions to problems in their midst instead of going for the quick & easy & worthless ?? What a concept!!! [/FONT]

IMHO, politicians of whatever stripe will NEVER do the "Hard Thing". Why it could lose them votes! Especially in local elections where only a very few votes can swing the thing. I fear we're stuck in a "feel good" society for the foreseeable future. Color me cynical... :icon_rage

 

[desertoasis]

The usual A4s hard-hittin' crime-fightin' talk.

What I don't get is why the 4 liberal justices voted against this thing when it effectively expands federal power, which is exactly what the run-of-the-mill federalist Democrat wants these days, right? Incorporation IS judicial activism, saying that what the federal government rules is federal law, the states MUST adhere to. Did I miss something here? Isn't that exactly what liberals are in support of and conservatives are virulently against? I might be (check that, I probably am) misinterpreting the ideological divide here, but why didn't the conservative justices shoot this down as an unnecessary expansion of federal power? The fact that its in the arena of gun control is wholly irrelevant; the federal government shouldn't have the right to tell a state that they can't legislate on something, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. If Illinois wants to be idiotic and subject its citizenry to suffocating gun control laws that will make Chicago less safe than it...already...is....hmm....anyways, if Illinois wants to do that, they have, as a state, the right to do so. The people who don't support that legislation can move to a state that has a law they agree with. In my reading of the Constitution, my understanding of the Tenth Amendment (often deliberately avoided in Supreme Court rulings, I've noticed) seems to indicate the Federal government is drastically overstepping its authority in all these cases. The early cases that established incorporation as a necessary power of the Supreme Court set all sorts of dangerous precedents used today, and I find it amusing that both sides of the Court are now grabbing onto them and using them to uphold unconstitutional laws (among them such gems as Roe v. Wade, D.C. v. Heller, Gonzales v. Raich), but only to support their own causes.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_v_Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

 

[nittany03]

Oh, good grief. So if Kansas wants to throw out its government and elect a dictator-for-life, they should be free to do that without any federal government interference? I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you the Fourteenth.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No state has a right to deprive its citizenry of the rights they enjoy as citizens of the United States. A state can't violate the Constitution or Bill or Rights just because its legislature thinks this is a good idea.

IANAL, but as I understand it, the reason we have to "incorporate" rights is not "judicial activism," but because of something called the Slaughterhouse Cases. After Dred Scott v. Sandford, this was up there on the Supreme Court's historic list of "WTF were they thinking" moments. Basically, it gutted the "privileges and immunities" clause by interpreting it as only applying to a narrow range of rights, as opposed to its original intent of preventing a state from screwing over half its citizenry (the darker-hued ones, as chance would have it). Trouble is, there's so much case law dependent on this interpretation, that admitting the screwup would apparently cause a huge judicial shitstorm. So instead, "incorporation" of a right is just a workaround to say that yes, this particular right of the Bill of Rights actually does apply to the states as well as the Federal Government.

 

[desertoasis]

Oh, good grief. So if Kansas wants to throw out its government and elect a dictator-for-life, they should be free to do that without any federal government interference? I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you the Fourteenth.

No state has a right to deprive its citizenry of the rights they enjoy as citizens of the United States. A state can't violate the Constitution or Bill or Rights just because its legislature thinks this is a good idea.

IANAL, but as I understand it, the reason we have to "incorporate" rights is not "judicial activism," but because of something called the Slaughterhouse Cases. After Dred Scott v. Sandford, this was up there on the Supreme Court's historic list of "WTF were they thinking" moments. Basically, it gutted the "privileges and immunities" clause by interpreting it as only applying to a narrow range of rights, as opposed to its original intent of preventing a state from screwing over half is citizenry (the darker-hued ones, as chance would have it). Trouble is, there's so much case law dependent on this interpretation, that admitting the screwup would apparently cause a huge judicial shitstorm. So instead, "incorporation" of a right is just a workaround to say that yes, this particular right of the Bill of Rights actually does apply to the states as well as the Federal Government.

I'd rather them just admit that Gitlow and Cruikshank were bad decisions, overturn them, and re-interpret all the decisions that used due process using privileges and immunities instead, and put all of these arguments to rest. Unfortunately, that's not how it works...like usual, the right thing is too hard to do!

 

[A4sForever]

What I don't get is why the 4 liberal justices voted against this thing when it effectively expands federal power....

Naaaaaahhhh ... it really doesn't. That 'power' is already there in our founding documents. It simply reinforces the premise that local/state jurisdictions need to 'keep your hands off my guns ... ' to oversimplify the specifics in this case.

But you gotta' realize -- and hopefully you do -- the REAL reason the lib's on the Court could not and will not EVER vote for an affirmation of our 2nd Amendment rights is 'cause they're not about our 'rights' -- whether they be Constitutional or God-given rights. They ARE, however, all about 'rights' that they approve of ... and it's usually the ones 'they' can dole out as they see fit ... i.e., it's about power & control.

Libs have a visceral dislike of 'guns' ... until THEY get mugged, of course ... 'cause people w/ 'guns' are inherently more independent ... and thus harder to 'control' in the greater sense ...

Read Steven's dissent -- parts of it were completely goofy and a classic tome to one's arrogance, ignorance, and psedo-intellectual mental masturbation. Example:

" ... The question in this case, then, is not whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (whatever that right’s precise contours) applies to the States because the Amendment has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. It has not been. The question, rather, is whether the particular right asserted by petitioners applies to the States because of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, standing on its own bottom. And to answer that question, we need to determine, first, the nature of the right that has been asserted and, second,whether that right is an aspect of Fourteenth Amendment “liberty.” Even accepting the Court’s holding in Heller, it remains entirely possible that the right to keep and bear arms identified in that opinion is not judicially enforceable against the States, or that only part of the right is so enforceable ..."

Now I ask you: what in the fuck does the above mean ... ??? It is noteworthy that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor did not join in this opinion. Thank God (I believe the Supreme Court still says 'God') the guy is retiring ... and soon.

My opinion: so it's not about '2nd Amendment rights' nor a sideways argument for increasing the power of the FEDs, but for the lib's on the Court and in our society at large -- it is all about left-wing agenda(s), bias, ignorance, and demagoguery.

And to that, I suppose we can now add senility ...

 

[statesman]

IMHO, politicians of whatever stripe will NEVER do the "Hard Thing". Why it could lose them votes! Especially in local elections where only a very few votes can swing the thing. I fear we're stuck in a "feel good" society for the foreseeable future. Color me cynical... :icon_rage

Thats not new though... We've been there a while, and here we shall remain.

 

[nittany03]

I'd rather them just admit that Gitlow and Cruikshank were bad decisions, overturn them, and re-interpret all the decisions that used due process using privileges and immunities instead, and put all of these arguments to rest. Unfortunately, that's not how it works...like usual, the right thing is too hard to do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Oh, good grief. So if Kansas wants to throw out its government and elect a dictator-for-life, they should be free to do that without any federal government interference? I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you the Fourteenth.

So are you saying the 14th Amendment supersedes the 10th?

 

[nittany03]

So are you saying the 14th Amendment supersedes the 10th?

No. It sets bounds beyond which the state governments may not pass. The Tenth amendment reserves rights to the people and the several states. The Fourteenth prevents the several states from unduly restricting the rights of the people. Specifically, those rights which are held to be fundamental rights of ALL Americans, regardless of which state they are a resident/citizen of.

The reason this amendment came into affect was that the Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws, and local law enforcement and militias were complicit in denying free blacks their constitutional rights. It can be interpreted as a check to prevent abusive state power of any sort. This could be via racial discrimination as in the 1800s, onerous restrictions on the right to bear arms as in Chicago, DC, and elsewhere, or other attempts to raise the sovereignty of the state over that of the people. As an aside, keep in mind also that many of the earliest gun control laws were directed at making sure that only whites had guns in the post-Civil War South.

desertoasis said that the feds have no business telling a state what it can and can't legislate. This is patently false. The Tenth Amendment limits the power of the Feds. The Fourteenth arguably limits the power of state and local governments. The screwup in my mind is that this "incorporation" business even needs to be discussed, but that is a legacy as I understand it of the Slaughterhouse cases and the doctrine of stare decisis.

 

[Spekkio]

Oh, good grief. So if Kansas wants to throw out its government and elect a dictator-for-life, they should be free to do that without any federal government interference? I'll see your Tenth Amendment and raise you the Fourteenth.

You are incorrect; this protection is specifically spelled out in Article 4 Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

So no, a state cannot set up a dictatorship so long as it is a member of the union.

The Constitution is very specific in things that the States cannot do; all else is fair game. The opposite holds true for the federal government, although today I do not believe we are following the intent of the Constitution (original or current) by any means in this regard.

On the surface, this ruling seems really good for gun advocates. However, very little is going to change from this decision. A state may not be able to outright ban gun ownership, but they can still make it exceedingly difficult to attain one and illegal to carry in public. But the ruling is harmful to those who want the federal government's power to be limited.