McDonald Decision
By now, you should have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court (or SCOTUS for short) handed down a decision on Monday that says the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments too. The 5-4 decision involved the same players as the 2008 Heller decision (with the "wise Latina" on the losing side in David Souter's place). Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion which summarizes the history and purpose of the 14th Amendment. He discusses why the Freedman Bureau act wasn't enough and how racist Confederates were literally robbing blacks of their arms, then shooting them. Southern "black codes" singled out blacks for special laws. Laws that forbade them to make contracts, serve on a jury, speak out publicly and, of course, own or buy firearms.
Alito handsomely shreds the municipal arguments and tosses them out the window as confetti. As an example, one of the arguments pushed by the city was that the 2nd Amendment wasn't covered by the due process clause. They suggested that due process protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’”
In the decision, Alito points out that many of our rights are unique to the American experience. Such things as our right to a jury trial, to have an attorney appointed, and our right to self-incrimination are distinctly American. If these were necessary, says Alito, then it would follow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.
What it all means
This decision says that the 2nd Amendment also acts as a limitation on State & local powers. Since most states have a right to keep and bear arms in their own constitutions, not much will change in those states unless they have used the "collective right" argument to justify gun laws.
States like California that have no equivilant to the 2nd amendment in their constitutions will now have to recognize the federal constraint. Draconian state laws that severely limit gun purchases and ownership will face serious challenges.
One way to look at some of the laws is to simply ask if they could be applied to the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments. If it would not make sense to limit one of the other rights using the same law, then it's likely unconstitutional when applied to the 2A.
One easy example is the one-gun-a-month laws. It is obvious that the government couldn't pass a law restricting you to attending church once a month. Or limit your ability to publicly speak to once a month. Why should any other fundamental right be so limited?
This actually plays towards the anti-gun lobby's side. In the next few years, our associations will have to spend large sums to challenge gun laws built up over decades. The anti-gun lobby can provide minimal help to the states, knowing they will fund the defense of those laws. Meanwhile, they can spend their money "experimenting" by lobbying for new laws or changing the definition of "prohibited persons".
Now is the time to give to gun-rights organizations so they can continue to fund legal challenges. I'm contributing to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but you can contribute to whomever you prefer.
Chicago Remains Stupid
Maybe it's in the water at city hall
All of the history and legal justification was lost on Chicago's number one bonehead, Mayor Daley and the city's cadre of anti-civil rights aldermen. As promised, his royal pomposity, the mayor, pushed through a new set of laws to keep Chicago residents from obtaining guns. Pushing through the bill was no problem for Daley -- the vote was 45-0 by city aldermen - and a new set of rules will apply in Chicago. This group of brainless dolts voted, in a rush, to pass a new package of laws that requires Chicago residents to first get a permit -- which the laws says the police can take 1/3 of the year to approve - take 5 hours of training and pay registration and permit fees.
So Chicago believes it can delay the exercise of a right, require you to obtain the city's permission (permit) to exercise the right, pay to exercise your right and mandate you pay for government-approved (and likely limited availability) training before exercising your right. None of which are constitutional.
Chicago newspapers should be screaming about the competency of the lawyers the mayor is using. Any second year law student should know that rights cannot be regulated like car ownership or owning a business.
I don't know if there is such a charge as "contempt of the Supreme Court", but if there is, Mayor Daley and Chicago's alderman should be facing it. It is arrogance second only to a dictator to say that Chicago will continute to enact unconstitutional provisions against gun owners.
Want to comment?
No comments:
Post a Comment