Two years ago, the Supreme Court rescued a constitutional right that had been abandoned and ignored by the courts for most of the last century: the right to keep and bear arms. That ruling only applied, however, to federal territories (it targeted a gun ban in the District of Columbia). Recently, the Court has been hearing a case that seeks to apply the same reasoning to limit state-level gun control laws, starting with the home of gun control, Chicago.
Jack Wakeland sent me a link to the article below and provided this overview of the arguments so far in McDonald v. Chicago.
"During oral arguments, five conservative justices lean on their recent Heller decision; four leftist justices continue their mawkish sniping against the right to armed self-defense.
"It looks a lot like the majority decision in McDonald will be an exact duplicate of the Heller decision, with the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment requiring the federal courts to intervene against the states to protect Americans against violations of their Second Amendment right to keep arms, in exactly the same limited, unspecified, and incremental manner as the court ordered the federal courts to do in Washington, DC, and the other federal territories.
"As limited and incremental as the court might be attempting to make their decision in McDonald, a 5-4 vote in favor of the same kind of legal guidance that the majority produced in the Heller decision will open the floodgates against anti-gun and anti-self-defense statutes and regulations throughout all jurisdictions and divisions of government in the United States. Just like the Civil Rights Movement tore down segregation with first incremental steps and then great strides, violations of the right to armed self-defense will be drowned in a rising tide of pro-liberty litigation over the next five years."
Aside from their significance to gun owners, who can now hope to be decriminalized, Heller and McDonald are an important victory for the cause of individual rights and constitutional government—the first time in many years that the Supreme Court has been aggressive in limiting the power of government in the name of protecting individual rights. Now if only we can do the same thing for property rights.
The only bad news is that the Court pointedly passed up on an even broader opportunity to defend individual rights by reviving the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, as described below.
"Supreme Court Does More Wrangling with Gun Laws," Robert Barnes, Washington Post, March 3
The same members of the Supreme Court who ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a firearm seemed ready Tuesday to ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not interfere with it. But a majority also indicated that the states may have "broader interests" in restricting gun ownership than the federal government….
Deciding that the Second Amendment applies "doesn't say anything by itself about whether those types of regulations, which you think are reasonable and your friends think may not be reasonable, are valid or not," Roberts told the attorney for two Chicago area jurisdictions whose laws are at issue.
The case, McDonald v. Chicago, was the logical follow to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That 2008 decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington….
An expected debate on constitutional theory fizzled. The court already has incorporated most of the Bill of Rights through a part of the 14th Amendment that says states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But in accepting the McDonald case, it said it would also consider reviving another part of the amendment, mostly dormant since an 1873 court decision, that forbids laws that abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."…
Even though conservatives have been sharply critical of using the due-process clause to validate liberty rights, the justices seemed even more wary of the alternative approach. Roberts said it would give federal judges more leeway to recognize new constitutional rights.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
Jack Wakeland sent me a link to the article below and provided this overview of the arguments so far in McDonald v. Chicago.
"During oral arguments, five conservative justices lean on their recent Heller decision; four leftist justices continue their mawkish sniping against the right to armed self-defense.
"It looks a lot like the majority decision in McDonald will be an exact duplicate of the Heller decision, with the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment requiring the federal courts to intervene against the states to protect Americans against violations of their Second Amendment right to keep arms, in exactly the same limited, unspecified, and incremental manner as the court ordered the federal courts to do in Washington, DC, and the other federal territories.
"As limited and incremental as the court might be attempting to make their decision in McDonald, a 5-4 vote in favor of the same kind of legal guidance that the majority produced in the Heller decision will open the floodgates against anti-gun and anti-self-defense statutes and regulations throughout all jurisdictions and divisions of government in the United States. Just like the Civil Rights Movement tore down segregation with first incremental steps and then great strides, violations of the right to armed self-defense will be drowned in a rising tide of pro-liberty litigation over the next five years."
Aside from their significance to gun owners, who can now hope to be decriminalized, Heller and McDonald are an important victory for the cause of individual rights and constitutional government—the first time in many years that the Supreme Court has been aggressive in limiting the power of government in the name of protecting individual rights. Now if only we can do the same thing for property rights.
The only bad news is that the Court pointedly passed up on an even broader opportunity to defend individual rights by reviving the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, as described below.
"Supreme Court Does More Wrangling with Gun Laws," Robert Barnes, Washington Post, March 3
The same members of the Supreme Court who ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a firearm seemed ready Tuesday to ensure that state and local gun-control laws do not interfere with it. But a majority also indicated that the states may have "broader interests" in restricting gun ownership than the federal government….
Deciding that the Second Amendment applies "doesn't say anything by itself about whether those types of regulations, which you think are reasonable and your friends think may not be reasonable, are valid or not," Roberts told the attorney for two Chicago area jurisdictions whose laws are at issue.
The case, McDonald v. Chicago, was the logical follow to the court's 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That 2008 decision established for the first time that the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" referred to an individual right, not one related to military service. But the decision that there is a right to keep a gun in one's home did not extend beyond the federal government and its enclaves such as Washington….
An expected debate on constitutional theory fizzled. The court already has incorporated most of the Bill of Rights through a part of the 14th Amendment that says states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But in accepting the McDonald case, it said it would also consider reviving another part of the amendment, mostly dormant since an 1873 court decision, that forbids laws that abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."…
Even though conservatives have been sharply critical of using the due-process clause to validate liberty rights, the justices seemed even more wary of the alternative approach. Roberts said it would give federal judges more leeway to recognize new constitutional rights.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
0 comments:
Post a Comment