One group says Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago will result in more homicides and another lumped law abiding gun owners and criminals into the same sentence.
None of it will take away from the jubilation being celebrated through the firearms community over the historic 5-4 ruling by the high court that incorporates the Second Amendment to apply to state and local governments through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. It will, according to the Chicago Tribune, open the doors for a stream of legal challenges to gun laws across the map.
Today's ruling extends the reach of the 2nd Amendment and will open the courthouse doors nationwide for gun rights advocates to challenge restrictions on firearms as unconstitutional.—Chicago Tribune
This was a shining moment for the Second Amendment Foundation and its co-plaintiffs in the case, the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago-area residents, Otis McDonald – for whom the case is named – plus Adam Orlov and David and Colleen Lawson.
It was not such a hot moment for the national press, which – in an obvious effort to not appear mixed up – largely refrained from noting that this was SAF’s case. They didn’t identify any organization as having filed the case. They tend to see the gun rights community as a monolith of the National Rifle Association, and it seems a bit unnerving for them to face the fact that there are several organizations pressing this issue. The Seattle Times and on-line Seattle Post-Intelligencer essentially ran the same wire service feed from the Associated Press to report the story, even though the case was filed by an organization that headquarters in Bellevue, just across the lake, so there is a significant local angle.
We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.”—Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The Seattle Weekly did weigh in with a local flavor, but Rick Anderson used it to take a few swipes at SAF's Alan Gottlieb in the process.
One thing the ruling affirmed that had nothing to do with the specific case was that former NRA President Sandra Froman, a Tucson, AZ attorney who opposed the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today stands vindicated. Sotomayor came down on the minority side of the ruling, joining the dissent of Justice Stephen Breyer, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens wrote his own dissent, which was verbally savaged by a concurring opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the court’s landmark Heller ruling in 2008.
Monday’s ruling did not nullify Chicago’s handgun ban, though that is the essential fate, since the ban part of this case has been remanded back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration under the high court’s incorporation decision. Already, anti-gun Mayor Richard Daley is vowing to make it as onerous as possible for any of his crime-weary constituents to exercise their re-claimed right of self-defense by legally obtaining handguns.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, touched considerably on the racist roots of gun control and also said this: “Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental.”
On the other hand, Breyer ended his dissent with this remarkable assertion that clearly paints Sotomayor into a corner as a participant:
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.
People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and's fading firearms industry…The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.”— America Violence Policy Center
“Moreover, nothing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense, as described in Heller, is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history or tradition’ or is otherwise ‘fundamental.’ Indeed, incorporating the right recognized in Heller may change the law in many of the 50 States. Read in the majority’s favor, the historical evidence is at most ambiguous. And, in the absence of any other support for its conclusion, ambiguous history cannot show that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a private right of self-defense against the States.”
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he's encouraged by what he sees in D.C. and vows not go down without a fight."We're not going to roll over," Daley told The Associated Press.
The McDonald ruling is hardly the end of this. It merely opens the door for further legal challenges of gun laws that seem onerous at best, and are probably unconstitutional. Somewhere in the process, we may see defined what is, and is not, a “reasonable gun regulation.”
With some authority, this column can advise readers to keep their eyes open for the next 24-48 hours, because it is almost certain there will be new legal actions in the wake of today’s ruling. And there will be more comment in tomorrow's entry about this case.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
Is there any evidence to support the statement that gun criminals have ever attempted to have gun laws "struck down" by petitioning a court of law? Why would a criminal waste his time and money on a eliminating law that he already ignores? Surely the people that write that kind of nonsense are intelligent enough to analyze such a broad statement. Unless of course there is some other agenda afoot...
A thought: the reason a criminal would want to ban guns is that it would make it tougher on the legal gun owner to get a gun to protect himself thus giving the criminal the upper hand to continue to escalate armed crimes.
Do you ever get tired of the same old Blood in the Streets, and OK Coral Syndrome, that is shouted at every gain over the Gun Rights Issue? There has yet to be a single event of Shootouts, no one calling out the Good Guy by the Bad Guy to meet in the street for a showdown. If people would check reality against the Movie stereotype of the Gun Fight they would discover that these shootouts were as common as an Earth quake in the South Pole!
Wake up America!
Kelly I must assume you are female, are you ever fed up with being called a prostitute because you have the equipment to be one?
Funny isn't it, this is how I feel when compared to a criminal.
Golly, Dave! I didn't know Alan Gottlieb initiated the McDonald case as a profit-making venture until I read the "Seattle Weekly's" hit piece on him. Talk about anti-semitic! They just about came out and said, "You know how those Jews love their money!" I took them to task on it with a comment, which I doubt will ever appear on their blog. You should fire for effect when the excitement of chronicling all the new gun-rights cases wears off. That shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged!
Meanwhile, I, like all self-reliant Americans am rejoicing in the knowledge that the Second Amendment will become more than just some words written on a piece of parchment a couple of hundred years ago!
"Somewhere in the process, we may see defined what is, and is not, a 'reasonable gun regulation.'"
As an anti might say "That's easy: anything that isn't an outright prohibition".
Like Mas Ayoob said "Mayor Daley has vowed to oppose it in every way. Expect red tape the consistency of concertina wire when you attempt to acquire a handgun and register it in Chicago: insanely high registration fees, and the equivalent of a Master’s Degree in Firearms Safety from Harvard, if there was such a thing."
Many people forget that the Second Amendment is one of ten things that the government is forbidden to do to (against) the people. All of the hoopla that we read, especially today and the next few days, are fantasies made up by people who predict wild things in order to sell papers. They are not required to be held to the accuracy of their prophecies, just like the Y2K Chicken Littles.
"Indeed, incorporating the right recognized in Heller may change the law in many of the 50 States."
And obviously, any SCOTUS ruling that causes a state law to be changed is incorrect. [facepalm] Does this guy even read this dreck before he inflicts it on the rest of us?
Dave as you know I’m often critical of any gun group that cuts deals especially when it’s not necessary.
I believe the SAF and ISRA should be applauded for taking this case to the Supreme Court.
The NRA is NOT the last and only word on the 2A and for the media to paint it as such is wrong!
I personally don’t believe this is the big win that some feel it is but it is a win!
This ruling will allow some pro-gun doors to be opened and I want to think the ISRA and the SAF for the work that they have done in this case
Now if we can just get the NRA/ISRA to stop making stupid deals like HB5832 in Illinois we would ALL be better off!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!