"I was in the courtroom on Tuesday for the Supreme Court argument [PDF file] in McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court is considering whether the new Second Amendment right, created two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment as a constraint on state and local gun control laws. Unsurprisingly, the same five justices who formed the Heller majority and voted to strike down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, now seem poised to vote for incorporation and strike down Chicago's handgun ban. Although this will be hailed by the gun lobby as a victory, there was much about Tuesday's argument suggesting it could eventually prove to be a hollow victory indeed.
What's your opinion? Does it make sense what he says?
The argument in McDonald gives hope that the McDonald majority, even if it strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, will amplify the Heller message that the Second Amendment erects no constitutional barrier to reasonable laws – at any level of government - to make it harder for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. The gun lobby will be displeased, but the American people will have dodged a constitutional bullet."
Please leave a comment.
I have no problem with making it harder for dangerous people (and only dangerous people) to get guns. Is Dennis Hennigan suggesting that everyone who lives in Chicago is dangerous? His supporting of the Chicago handgun ban would seem to suggest that.
ReplyDelete"I was in the courtroom on Tuesday for the Supreme Court argument [PDF file] in McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court is considering whether the new Second Amendment right..."
ReplyDeleteIt's only new to you, Denny.
"Although this will be hailed by the gun lobby as a victory, there was much about Tuesday's argument suggesting it could eventually prove to be a hollow victory indeed."
And the damage control begins... I wonder if Denny can show us one post-Heller piece of legislation from any state that fits his agenda that wasn't either defeated or DOA.
Since I have argued that a loss for McDonald would energize gunowners against gun control as never before, I suppose that I should not blame Henigan for claiming that a win for McDonald is good for him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, does anyone really doubt that Henigan actually hopes for a loss for McDonald, and is just trying to spin what most observers see as the likely outcome?
We will thus likely see both sides claiming victory in a win for McDonald, and both sides may be premature. It is likely that a third Supreme Court case may be required to get a better grasp of the extent of the Second Amendment -- a case that determines the "standard of review" that the courts should apply to gun conrtol laws.
So incorporation would not be a victory for gun owners per the number 1 man of the most prominent anti-freedom group in the country.
ReplyDeleteSo then what's the problem? Why are all the little lefties gnashing their teeth over McDonald?
"[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. … Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. … [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."
ReplyDeleteAntonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law 136-137 n.13 (Amy Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press 1997).
Of course, he went against everything he claims to believe in DC v. Heller.
With the ultimate upshot being whatever comes out of this, I am sure it will be a very stange creature.
Let us take a look at the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment has been interpreted to protect television and radio broadcasts, though its authors could not have conceived of such things.
And yet, some forms of speech, such as perjury and criminal threats, have been held to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Also, if the court can deign to say what
ReplyDeleteJustice Kennedy is quoted as saying: "...there are provisions of...the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated against the States, where the States have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations....We look to see what the political process does...[W]hy can’t we do the same thing with firearms?"
And what Justice Roberts said about the right to keep and bear arms is "still going to be subject to the political process if the Court determines that it is incorporated in the Due Process Clause."
add that in with Robert's comment about not burdening the Second Amendment with Baggage in the Heller oral argument
Why not allow DC's gun laws to stand?
The US should have stayed as part of Britain if it wanted government from afar.
Hollow victory? This is a stepping stone towards Shall-issue carry laws in all 50 states, which in turn opens national reciprocity wide open.
ReplyDeleteThat's not hollow.
Good for you Dennis. Whatever gets you to sleep at night. For what it is worth, I don’t think all 20,000 gun laws are going down after McDonald either.
ReplyDelete-TS
Kevin said, "This is a stepping stone towards Shall-issue carry laws in all 50 states, which in turn opens national reciprocity wide open."
ReplyDeleteWow, I've been saying it's gonna be an interesting year, but not that interesting.
Michael Ejercito, Thanks for stopping by. But, sorry, I don't buy the never-ending comparisons to the 1st Amendment. I don't like comparisons in general, but that one especially doesn't work for me.
Getting back to the 2nd Amendment, it's not so much that the weapons have changed from muskets to Glocks, it's that the idea of "militia" has no more relevance in today's society.
"...it's that the idea of "militia" has no more relevance in today's society."
ReplyDeleteSays who?
Let's just say I'm feeling a little optimistic...
ReplyDeleteBut still, if incorperation goes through, that possibility becomes available. If the right to arms is affirmed, the whole reason for May-issue licensing is overturned. Then, if every state has Shall-issue, that just might be enough to swing those last two votes National Reciprocity needed.
I don't like comparisons in general, but that one especially doesn't work for me.
ReplyDelete...unless meteorites are involved.
Laci - The 2A is a fundamental right. You may disagree but it is as a matter of law.
ReplyDeleteWhat other Fundamental Rights are not applicable to the states?
Should a state be able to decide women can't vote, or pass a law bringing back slavery or separate but equal. Sure, it violates the Constitution, but if the people in that State want it we shouldn't bother them, right? Even though they're violation the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
That's basically your position, but you seem to only want to apply it to the 2nd Amendment.