In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois’, 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons. A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of firearms for self-protection. The right to keep and bear arms applied to ALL 50 states!
At issue was whether the constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question had remained unanswered for decades, and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights. The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.
The big headline in the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban-case decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, is that the states are now bound by the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment and applies to the states, under the Due Process clause used to apply other Bill of Rights requirements to the states. The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion and concluded:
The 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment right… to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
Although some people had held out hope that Sotomayor, in her first gun case, would lean on her known respect for civil rights and find for the right to keep and bear, she turned out to be the worm most expected, and voted for denial of rights in the 5-4 squeaker decision. She joined Breyer’s dissent, a masterpiece of odd reasoning and lack of appreciation for this fundamental right (based on a very quick overview). Kagan, cut from similar cloth, is likely to respond similarly if confirmed.
Related posts:
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Subscribe
