McDonald vs. City of Chicago

[mrjarrell]

^^ What Bill said. Heller 2 is already being prepped to take on DC's onerous restrictions. With the decision in McDonald we'll have to see how the courts rule on it and see if it has to proceed to SCOTUS.

 

[downzero]

Like I said, I was just running it, but I would like to find out how far-reaching the SCOTUS decision will be. Why would it not allow Nationwide carry? If the 2nd has been extended to protect an individual right from both the federal and the state governments then why would it be illegal to carry a gun in Illinois since the 2nd is a right?

INGunGuy

Because court decisions are limited to the holdings in the case. The question of carry was not before the court.

And which Justice are you clerking for given your certainty?

This Court, for whatever reason, has shown a higher degree of interest in this area of the law than any in recent history. So I think it likely they will continue hearing these cases until they are satisfied with the direction of this aspect of the law. That could of course change if any one of the five concurring justices leave the Court.

The reasons in this case have nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with the law.

Get a circuit split on any fact pattern that the American people care about, and you, too, will get to argue before the Court.

It only takes four justices to hear a case ("rule of four").

I wonder how this will affect the '86 MG ban. If at all.

It doesn't and won't affect the '86 ban at all. It is between four parties and the City of Chicago.

Ouch $800! Is there not a current "heller 2" case in the system due to this issue right now? I figured that would eventually get to the SC as well.

Already been rejected. The Supreme Court would never hear such a case.

The Supreme Court is an appellate court to answer specific questions of law. It is not an appeal of last resort for specific facts when other courts refuse to do the right thing. The justices have stated in public interviews before that they will not take a case because they feel it was wrongly decided.

 

[Eddie]

If you want a quicker read, read through the syllabus and then skip down to section III B 2 and read that . The sections that five Justices could agree on are I, II A, II B, II D, III A and III B but they are mostly the history of this line of cases and big quotes from the Heller decision.

The big thing seems to be a comment by the 7th Circuit that it was following legal precedent set down in US v. Cruikshank, Pressler v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas but that it thought that the rationale of those cases was "defunct". This case tells the lower court to analyse the claim that the Chigago gun ban is unconstitutional by applying the second ammendment to the law by means of the 14th amendment.

I will add a disclaimer that by no means do I practice constitutional law so my opinion isn't much different than that of a layman.

 

[spartan933]

Haha!! Daley, you suck!

 

[downzero]

The big thing seems to be a comment by the 7th Circuit that it was following legal precedent set down in US v. Cruikshank, Pressler v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas but that it thought that the rationale of those cases was "defunct". This case tells the lower court to analyse the claim that the Chigago gun ban is unconstitutional by applying the second ammendment to the law by means of the 14th amendment.

The Seventh Circuit was basically begging for the Court to fix their precedents with this case. It's really a good thing that the Court heard it, or who knows what kind of law we'd have on this issue.

Considering the problems that lower courts have had applying Heller, I wouldn't expect any less from this.

 

[jedi]

Already been rejected. The Supreme Court would never hear such a case.

The Supreme Court is an appellate court to answer specific questions of law. It is not an appeal of last resort for specific facts when other courts refuse to do the right thing. The justices have stated in public interviews before that they will not take a case because they feel it was wrongly decided.

So in essence we got a "paper win" but the reality is that Chicago will put up a slew of paperwork and fees that one will need to do in order to have a "gun @ home in chicago" and may the fees just like DC if not higher, make the process as slow as possible and continue with the "ban" just not "offically" a ban. **sigh** Justice is indeed deaf and blind.

 

[Expat]

I know this. I listened to Alan Gottlieb on Guntalk several months ago. He said that they planned all of this out a few years ago. They already have in the works additional cases they are going to bring to SCOTUS to continue to enlarge and clarify our gun rights. I think I will trust the people that are trying these cases as to what their plans are.

 

[lashicoN]

It's going to be really interesting in 20-30 years from now, after all the gun cases being brought before the courts, when the supreme court comes out and rules that the Second Amendment applies to all Americans and is a right that can not be infringed. Meanwhile, Americans spent millions of dollars in court fees to get the SCOTUS to admit that the Bill of Rights means EXACTLY what it says.

As other have said, I wouldn't call this a "win". But perhaps we scored a goal...or at least took possession of the ball.

We have an extremely long way left to go and just because the SCOTUS says something, means nothing in the future. Remember, at one time, our Congress passed the Bill of Rights, which granted every American the right to keep AND bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. Look how far we've slipped from there. It's a battle that gun owners and Rights lovers can never stop fighting.

 

[downzero]

So in essence we got a "paper win" but the reality is that Chicago will put up a slew of paperwork and fees that one will need to do in order to have a "gun @ home in chicago" and may the fees just like DC if not higher, make the process as slow as possible and continue with the "ban" just not "offically" a ban. **sigh** Justice is indeed deaf and blind.

Every win in an appeal is a "paper win." It's how the precedents are applied that will ultimately matter. And this is a big win for our side of the "paper."

 

[tuoder]

So in essence we got a "paper win" but the reality is that Chicago will put up a slew of paperwork and fees that one will need to do in order to have a "gun @ home in chicago" and may the fees just like DC if not higher, make the process as slow as possible and continue with the "ban" just not "offically" a ban. **sigh** Justice is indeed deaf and blind.

That was the best-case scenario from the beginning. It will not be long before they ban everything legally possible to ban. You tear down the wall, and they can build 95% of right back up again.

 

[thej27]

You should read some of the comments on the huffington post. They are losing it. It also shows how many are ignorant of the intentions of the founding fathers.

Supreme Court Extends Rights Of Gun Owners Across The Country

BTW I only go to that site when there are events like this just because I like seeing their "enlightened" stupidity.

 

[Vasili]

Kagan's presence on the bench would have made no difference. Stevens is a liberal judge being replaced with a liberal judge.

Look, I know that one liberal is going to replace another.
But when any justice retires, there's that camaraderie lost.
And this is or rather will be the youngest court in a long long time.

The ability to listen to differing viewpoints, built up by years of mutual respect, disappears with the justice who retires.

I'm not saying it probably wouldn't have been a hairsplitter. I'm saying it might not have come down this way. Something that should be unanimous still came down as a 5-4.

This is a win for us and for liberty, yes. But not as much as everyone thinks. If liberty in this country were as strong as it should be, this should have been 9-0. Period.

And there's still plenty of wiggleroom on how to enforce this decree, or really what it means has yet to be determined. like other people have said, this now leaves it up to the slippery minds of the 7th to interpret this in a SCOTUS pleasing way, which I'm sure exists since a basic fundamental right guaranteed by our sole founding Constitution is just now getting full recognition some 240 years later.

 

[Phil502]

I'm waiting for Oblama to speak.

 

[henktermaat]

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

 

[gunowner930]

Read the article on CNN and many are blaming the "conservative majority" for the decision. Has Daley thrown his temper tantrum yet?

 

[tem375]

Glad to hear that they finally ruler, I don't think that there was ever a question of what the decision would be but just when it would come and what Dickhead Daley would do.

This is a big win for 2A.

 

[38special]

This is yet another good decision (albeit too close for comfort) and I like this current trend toward gun ownership. We're fighting for our rights and overwhelmingly winning in a pretty rough environment over the last few decades.

Continue to stand up for your rights so this keeps going.

 

[38special]

I'll add this - I'm disappointed that the only place I've seen this is Drudge.

Fox doesn't have it. Yahoo's front page has it tucked away.

 

[Expat]

I'll add this - I'm disappointed that the only place I've seen this is Drudge.

Fox doesn't have it. Yahoo's front page has it tucked away.

It takes some time for people to read the opinion, it's more than a few pages. National Review has an article up now.

 

[downzero]

It takes some time for people to read the opinion, it's more than a few pages. National Review has an article up now.

214 pages!