High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Remove all ads!

From CNN

It appears that the Supreme Court has finally made a nationwide ruling concerning "gun control laws".

Spoiler

Washington (CNN) -- 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 certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

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.

A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

The justices two years ago affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gun rights groups applauded the decision.

"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. "It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."

Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion.

"There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly.

The Justice Department estimates that as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.

One part ensures that states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion, and to homosexual sex.

But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case was whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when considering a variety of state laws.

McDonald's lawyer, Alan Gura, promoted a new reading of the clause, in his lead role representing gun owners.

The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars had said that if the high court embraced this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, like property rights and gay marriage.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."

The current case was McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

Full disclosure- I do not own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun, but I can read and the 2nd amendment clearly allows gun ownership. I agree with SCOTUS that reasonable limitations make sense (so much for wanting to own a flamethrower), the problem will be the gun control lobby will overstep this and push this boundary as much as they think they can get away with. It will kind of be like the anti-abortion people constantly trying to pass laws that weaken Roe V. Wady ever so slightly....

 

I agree with Snook. Seriously. I also have no interest in owning a gun, but I don't know anyone who owns a gun and is not responsible with it. Yes, accidents can happen, and yes, the chance of being a victim of an accidental shooting is about 50 times higher (seriously) if you or someone in your household owns a gun, but such a statistic does not show (and really cannot) how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership.

I don't care how many legally obtained firearms a person owns, and I agree with Snook that reasonable limitations can be placed on gun ownership. You don't need a flamethrower, a rocket launcher or an RPG.

I view the 2nd Amendment as two distinct clauses:

The use of the word "people" in the latter part of the amendment seems to differentiate it from the milita in the first part. If it was only the militia that was entitled to possess fire arms (like a state's Guard unit), it would seem to me that they would have used the word "militia" instead of "people" in the second phrase.

Yes, I understand that the weapons used by the militia at the time the 2nd Amendment was written were typically self-supplied. However, the most reasonable interpretation (IMO) of the 2nd Amendment was that everyday ordinary Americans can legally arm themselves.

 

It's nice to see the SCOTUS still cares a little bit about the rights of decent, non-criminal citizens over the rights of criminal filth with criminal records over a mile long. More common sense decisions like this are what's needed, not advice to "let the criminals do what they want to you, they probably had a bad childhood" sort of crap.

 

I am constantly amazed by the amount of drama that goes in America in the name of Gun Rights - on both sides of the debate. It's astonishing how much air time this issue gets. You don't hear anything like it any other country that I've ever been to, but Americans seem like they can't get enough of this debate.

 

Is the right to bear arms something this is not found in the Constitution of other nations? I suspect it isn't which may have something to do with it being a hot button issue in the US. I know that there are sticter gun laws in a lot of other western nations, so I have to assume it's not a Constitutionally protected right in many other places.

 

"Criminals" don't buy guns?

 

They tend to get them on the black market and carry them illegally. Which leads me to the thought that restrictions on gun purchases for the purpose of excluding criminal purchase (ie "I'll sell you this gun once I am satisfied that you do not have a criminal record or court order prohibiting you from owning weapons") are a good thing, but restrictions on those law abiding citizens that go beyond a criminal record excluding check are merely another way of stripping away the rights of those citizens to defend themselves.

 

They do? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I know that there are loop-holes that allow criminals to buy guns, espeically at gun shows. I've posted some vidoes in the past, (when we've had these "gun debates" that go largely nowhere) which show just anyone walking up to a table at a gun show and buying a gun -- no questions asked. Also, if I own a gun, take out an online ad, or an ad in the paper, and someone comes over my house to buy it (including a criminal, or would be criminal), I can just sell the gun to that person without a background check. So it seems the ruling works for both non-criminal citizens and those citizens who are criminals in the same instance.

 

No idea. I don't think other countries get as excited by either guns or Constitutions as you guys do. Some of my Facebook friends are constantly posting stories about the latest gun decision. It's amazing. I bet the people on SP from other countries never ever start threads on gun rights. It seems to me to be a peculiarly American obsession. Not saying it's good or bad, just that it's not something that seems to excite English, Irish, New Zealand, German, or Dutch people (to take a random selection of other nationalities).

 

It's certainly understandable that you don't know what is in the Constitution of other nations. I can say that I've read no other Constitution than the one from the US. But what about New Zealand in particular - presumably you know if you have a right to bear arms or not.

As far as the American obsession with guns, I think that really depends on who you talk to. I do not own a gun, nor have I ever had any desire to own a gun. In all likelihood, I'll never own a gun. I just don't see a need for it. While I don't live in a great neighborhood, it's not a crime-ridden area either. I don't fear my house getting broken into, I don't fear for my safety walking down the street, and I don't hunt, so I don't need a gun.

 

Actually, they tend to purchase them on the unregulated secondary market since private sales don't usually require a background check. In states where they do regulate the secondary market, your point stands, save for one caveat. Criminals who have yet to be caught tend to acquire their weapons legally. Why wouldn't they? It's safer, more convenient, and less expensive to buy a gun legally.

The one exception to this would of course be gang members, whose weapons tend to be stolen or illegal because even when they have no criminal record or can circumvent the background check by purchasing on the unregulated secondary market, they still tend to be too young to buy a handgun in the first place.

 

My central point still stands -- die hard criminals will be able to get guns regardless of the laws made to restrict their sale. Laws that inhibit criminals' ability to do so legally make sense, but they are hardly going to solve the entire problem.

Gun laws that instead disarm law abiding citizens make those citizens much more likely to end up as victims. It looks like SCOTUS doesn't see guns in the hands of law abiding citizens as a threat to democracy or domestic peace.

 

Well, yes, now you've added a bit more clarity to your "central point."

Ok then, let's not mince any words. The "intention" of gun laws is not to "take guns away from average citizens," despite the hysteria and the lies spread by ideologues in the NRA: It is to try and figure out why gun laws in other countries seem to work pretty well and if they can work here. It is true that that may be a consquence of passing such laws (which is why I'm really not that keen on them, since that would be unconstitutional). But when ideologues stand up and accuse gun control activists of "trying to disarm citizens" they are just proving how ignorant they really are. It's one thing to say, "such laws really won't work in the US, despite the success in other countries," but to constantly accuse one side of picking on "law abiding citizens" unjustly is just meaningless, NRA propaganda.

 

In the opening of every "The Simpsons" episode, they run Maggie thru the scanner at the supermarket. Her prices reads... "NRA4EVER". "The Simpsons" is on Fox, who would of figured???

 

I don't think that is true. It may have happened in an episode, but it normally says this per wikipedia

 

When I actually take the time to think this confuses me even more than the guns issue itself. Why are ye so obsessed with sticking to the letter of the law as written by a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago? I can easily see why the 2nd amendment made sense at the time but why isn't the discussion framed as to what makes sense now? Speaking generally the US supreme court seems to effectively make law in many cases, hence why there's such interest in its makeup. I've seen more articles over here about US supreme court judges than Irish ones. The Irish supreme court is very strict about separation of duties. They adminster the law and are very clear that they expect the politicians to alter it if the results are not satisfactory.

 

Because America has a somewhat unique culture, even 200 years ago. And while some of the reasons have changed, guns are a part of that culture. I admit, some take it a bit extreme. But private gun ownership is an individual right and for us it is a valued freedom. I don't believe for a minute that the average citizen is going to war with his/her government, but if we give up one valued freedom then we are certainly at risk of losing another...and another. One has to see the 2nd Amendment within the larger scope of Constitutional rights. We can't break those rights up and say one is more or less important than another. These are real freedoms, which Americans have in their everyday lives. But for those who refuse to see beyond only the 2nd Amendment, I have no excuse for.

 

Nope. I don't even know if we have a constitution. I'm pretty certain we don't, and if we do, it must be pretty obscure for me to have never heard about it. I know a fair amount about NZ history and I assume I would know if we had a constitution. If we therefore accept that we have no constitution that it follows that we don't have any tablet-inscribed right to bear arms. Nobody I know has a gun and I have never heard anyone here go on about whether or not we should be allowed to have one. I spent four years living in England and I never heard it ever come up in conversation there either. I also don't recall England having a Constitution either.

 

I'm not American, but let me say that I am a citizen of a country with very tight gun laws. And from what I have observed, the very aim of gun laws *is* to take guns away from average citizens. And even if that was not the intention (which is highly debatable), that is the effect.

Again, I'm not exactly sure what 'lies and hysteria' the NRA says. But let me tell you, once the government takes away one of your rights without a fight, they will take away more and more! Let them take away automatic weapons from law abiding citizens without kicking up a fuss, and the next day they will take away semi-automatics. Then handguns. Then shotgun. Then air rifles. Then BB guns. Then hunting knives. Until there is literally nothing a law abiding citizen can own without the permission of the gubmint!

It's debatable as to whether gun laws 'work' in other countrys. I come from a country which has introduced many gun laws. Yes, gun violence has decreased. But assault, robberies and homicides have also increased.

Now, I'm not stupid enough to say that that is clear evidence of failure of our gun laws. But let's remember that every time anti-gun maniacs try to justify stripping away the rights of citizens, they often make unscientific statements such as "Well, since bringing in X law, the number of gun related deaths has decreased!" or "Why, there hasn't been a shoot out in 10 years! Clearly gun laws make us safer people. Now, bend over to be sodomised more by your government!"

Tell me, what exactly *is* the intention of gun control activists, if not to disarm citizens? How can one be a gun *control* activist if one does not support more restrictive firearms legislation, which makes it more difficult for your average law abiding citizen to own a gun?

---------- Added 0 hours, 16 minutes and 21 seconds later... ----------

Yes, I don't understand why citizens demand the rights and freedoms that they are entitled to, and which their ancestors fought for.

 

Why does the average law-abiding citizen want or need a gun? Nobody I know in New Zealand has the slightest desire to own a gun. I still don't understand the American obsession with gun rights. What other countries care so much about the ownership of this one particular type of thing? Why not car ownership rights? Or dog ownership? Or gold ownership? Why GUNS??