SCOTUS decision is in!

[MsDoodahs]

YAY!

Went in favor of Macdonald, the Chicago gent who wanted to own a handgun!

YAY!

[Noob]

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent the city of Chicago's long-debated ban on handgun ownership back to a lower court, and ruled in favor of a nationwide right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Supreme Court issued the 5-4 ruling Monday morning in McDonald v. Chicago, which challenged handgun bans in the city of Chicago and in Oak Park

In the ruling, the court "reversed and remanded" McDonald v. Chicago, which sends the ruling back to a lower court.

The suit also asked the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which struck down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C. For this part of the suit, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms must be upheld in state and federal jurisdictions.

In Heller v. D.C., the court ruled that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to possess guns for self-defense and other purposes, but presently, that decision only applied to federal laws, such as those of Washington, D.C. But the court has ruled that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments.

The plaintiffs in McDonald v. Chicago were:
--Otis McDonald, a retiree who says he wants protection after his Far South Side house has been broken into repeatedly and he has been threatened.
--David and Colleen Lawson, whose involvement stems from a scare in 2006 when Colleen Lawson was home alone with the flu and three men tried to jimmy open her back door. They ran off when they saw her through a window.
--Adam Orlov, a businessman who was previously a police officer for four years, and believes that people hurt by the city's handgun ban are those obeying it.

McDonald said last year that the possibility of confronting an armed would-be victim might make a criminal think twice.

"We should have, at least, a deterrent, and I think that that will give the would-be robbers, or what have you, something to think about when they get ready to break into a house on an elderly person," McDonald said in September 2009.

The city's handgun ban has been on the books for some 28 years.

Several aldermen were calling for a freeze on handgun registration in the late 1970s, as gun violence in the city skyrocketed. Morton Grove passed a handgun ban in 1981, and soon afterward, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) proposed an ordinance to ban the further sale and registration of handguns in the City of Chicago, the Encyclopedia of Chicago recounts.

The legislation was approved in 1982, with strong support from Mayor Jane Byrne, and coming just after President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were wounded by gunfire assassination attempts.

The ban has been weathering legal challenges ever since it was instituted. But it gained newfound attention after the Heller decision.

Within days of the Heller vs. D.C. ruling, suburban Wilmette, Morton Grove and Winnetka did away with their handgun bans altogether, and Evanston repealed parts of its ban.

But in Chicago and Oak Park, the ban remained. A federal judge dismissed lawsuits by the National Rifle Association to overturn the bans, and in June of last year, a three-judge federal appeals court upheld that ruling.

Mayor Richard M. Daley has expressed hope that the court would not overturn the ban, and but if it did, the mayor called for the passage of new ordinances to regulate guns.

Daley discussed requiring gun owners to buy insurance or take firearms training classes, as well as "look for new ways to challenge gun manufacturers."

"You have to go through driver's ed, you have to get a license, you have to pass a test for drivers, but you really don't have to do anything to own a gun," Daley said in May.

Prospective gun owners in Washington, D.C., now are required to take training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range and several hours in a classroom learning about gun safety. They also must pass a 20 question test based on D.C.'s firearm laws.

Washington, D.C.'s police chief, Cathy Lanier, said the city has "yet to have a case where someone was about to be the victim of a crime where someone pulled a handgun and saved themselves."

But that isn't the case in Chicago, and many – including numerous Chicago Police officers who post to the Second City Cop blog – say that could provide the motivation for more people to purchase guns if a ban is lifted.

Earlier this month, Second City Cop quoted a Chicago Tribune story that estimates there is a handgun in more than 100,000 Chicago homes despite the ban, in many cases by otherwise law-abiding residents.

"100,000? We're going to go out on a limb here and label that number the low end of the spectrum," Second City Cop said. "And once the Supremes come down with their ruling and once the summer really gets cranking, we're going to call 500,000 a very low estimate as decent people who were only hesitating over the misdemeanor charge for 'Failure to Register' take advantage of the change to finally buy a gun or upgrade."

A theory advanced by former University of Chicago professor John Lott says the crime rate drops when criminals are deterred by the possibility of confronting an armed victim. Lott also claimed the Chicago gun ban was to blame for an increase in crime.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.handgun.ban.2.1776386.html

[angelatc]

Wow. How sad is it that I wouldn't have bet on that one?

[50calray]

In your Face Daley!!!

[Baptist]

Don't get too excited too quick. Where is a PDF of the ruling? Somebody post a link please.

[Slutter McGee]

Wow. How sad is it that I wouldn't have bet on that one?

I believed it. The question was the same as almost every other case. Kennedy? I figured he would side with the conservatives on the court.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Pericles]

The bad news is that there are 4 SCOTUS members who think the US Constitution does not apply to the entire country.

[Dr.3D]

Don't get too excited too quick. Where is a PDF of the ruling? Somebody post a link please.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[senatorpjt]

Don't get too excited too quick. Where is a PDF of the ruling? Somebody post a link please.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[xd9fan]

so much for federalism in a republic.

since we dont believe in states "rights"......look forward to more of your "rights" to be defined by 9 in black robes. Gone are to days when the Bill of Rights only applied to the feds like the founders wanted. They wanted states to be more free and individual thats why they had their own state constitutions.

Whats the point now of states even having their own constitutions???
(back when we still had a republic i guess)


I'm a gun guy, I'm a limited govt guy.....I still dont like central planning even if it seems its in my favor.........we are still not righing the ship back towards a republic.

[Pericles]

the Bill of Rights only applied to the feds like the founders wanted.

Source?

[Matt Collins]

Richard Hamblen wrote on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1071805107):


Hardly a victory...McDonald completes the destruction of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution) begun by Heller. Read the opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf), not the PR fluff. Is it a principal of justice to accept unConstitutional law merely because there is precedent for it?

Try to ignore the Militia component of the Second Amendment and you end up with "reasonable restrictions", defined by the personal whim of any federal judge.

Even Presser v. Illinois says "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

The operative phrase is "all citizens capable of bearing arms", the same language used in Miller in 1939. The Second Amendment is not about self defense or duck hunting. It is about the Militia, which is "everyone physically capable of bearing arms".The means to self defense is merely a happy benefit of the well regulated Militia.

How much longer are YOU going to stand by and passively watch the destruction of your God given rights?For those who do not remember Rich Hamblen is a Ron Paul supporter who spent 13 months in a federal prison camp because as a Battalion Commander of the TN State Guard he built machine guns for his unit and apparently the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.

He is well qualified to speak on this subject as his case went all the way to the Supreme Court (at the same time as Heller) but was denied a hearing.

You can read about his case here:
http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates/ (http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates/)


.

[xd9fan]

Source?
__________________

start here......
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[Pericles]

start here......
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

Those don't quote founders, they quote the SCOTUS decision Barron v. Baltimore, which is a decision contrary to Article V and Article VI, and one of the reasons the 14th Amendment was promulgated.