Protecting the Second Amendment, But Just Barely

Heritage Foundation via The Woodward Report ^ | June 28, 2010 | Hans von Spakovsky

[antiobamacare]

In what is probably the most important Second Amendment case in Supreme Court history, the Court today held that the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cannot be infringed by the states. In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments.

In a long-awaited decision on the final day of the Supreme Court’s term, a 5-4 majority of the Court in an opinion written by Justice Alito overturned the City of Chicago’s regulations on firearms. These regulations included a ban on handguns, a requirement that other guns be registered prior to their acquisition (which is impractical in many cases), a burdensome annual reregistration requirement and annual fee, and a punitive provision that would bar the reregistration of a gun once its registration expired.

The opinion holds that the right to keep and bear arms is among the most fundamental rights necessary to this Nation’s system of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Thus, it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...

[gundog]

And FYI, “...shall not be infringed.” also applies to Executive Orders. Whether SCOTUS agrees or not.

[cpforlife.org]

Rush just did an excellent job highlighting this decision.

The four who voted against it are traitors.

[LS]

Rush blasting this out of the water by connecting it to race.

[TexasRedeye]

Other than the outright ban on handguns..." ...a requirement that other guns be registered prior to their acquisition (which is impractical in many cases), a burdensome annual reregistration requirement and annual fee, and a punitive provision that would bar the reregistration of a gun once its registration expired.

NOTHING will change! The Illinois legislature will simply add handguns to the list of "allowable" weapons that can be registered. Then the court battle will be started again and years from now SCOTUS will determine which (if any) restrictions of Chicago (and other like-minded localities) are not allowed. "Reasonable" gun controls are going to be with us for years and each stipulation will have to be determined whether "reasonable" or not by SCOTUS. They have just kicked the can down the road by not going further with this ruling.

[Myrddin]

This should put a stake in the practice of forcing a "firearms owner id" as a means of licensing access to a fundamental individual right. That is as stupid as requiring a license for the 1st amendment so you can speak or attend a religious activity.

[Logical me]

Here we have 4 Justices that are siding with communists rule of America. If they cannot read and understand the Second Amendment then they are not real Americans and belong to the garbage of the left.

[PackerBoy]

I am concerned about all of the state and local "reasonable" restrictions that will substantially gut this ruling. The "right to travel" does not allow you to drive 150 mph down the Interstate. Speed limits are reaosnable.

But what will be a reaosnable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms? The Court gave us no standard of measurement.

[rustyboots]

I will state from the beginning that I am not a lawyer, I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. I just scanned the dissent of Justice Stevens. All I can say is that I am glad he is leaving and can no longer impart in any way his interpretation of the Constitution. For the most part it seems he is of the opinion that the USSC should be able to pick and choose which rights we are to enjoy without restrictions. He is still fighting Heller and states that is wrong. I am pretty sure most of his dissent is there to be used by others in the future to overturn this ruling.
Toward the end of his dissent he states, “..The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the States from federal encroachment.” The Justice should read history; I think the Civil War proved that to be wrong.

[Uncle Hal]

Folks 5-4. We are only a fatal heart attack from being a “liberal” court. And as long as this clown is in there it is coming. Sooner rather than later. Pray for the nation.

[Logical me]

A question. If we somehow have 60 Senators and a majority of the House can impeachment proceeding be brought against a Supreme Court Justice? Of course we can nail King Obama,

[BuckeyeTexan]

The four who voted against it are traitors.

But we knew that. I can't say this often enough: "Elections have consequences!" We have maintain control of the SCOTUS.

[FrankR]

"...the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cannot be infringed by the states."

By the "states"? How about the FEDS? Is this some slick wording to throw the gun owners a curve and buy some time?

Is that what the ruling actually said, or the way the media spun it?

[FrankR]

"...the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cannot be infringed by the states."

By the "states"? How about the FEDS? Is this some slick wording to throw the gun owners a curve and buy some time?

Is that what the ruling actually said, or the way the media spun it?

[montag813]

The four who voted against it are traitors.

Well 3 traitors. 1 special-needs justice (Sotomayor) who is in way over her head and doesn't seem to know what's going on and wrote the most retarded dissent I have ever read. She is surely the dumbest human to ever serve on the SCOTUS.

[DCBryan1]

We have maintain control of the SCOTUS.

I vote for term limits....."Romanian style"....for anti-American public servants.

[SeeSharp]

I just scanned the dissent of Justice Stevens. All I can say is that I am glad he is leaving...

Yeah, his dissent wasn't just wrong. It was a bit rambling. I think the old boy is past it.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

SCOTUS didn't go far enough. As long as bureaucrats are allowed any discretion the 2nd amendment will be trampled.

Places like Chicago will put so many burdens on anyone wanting to own a gun that many will just give up.

[William Tell]

In this era of constrained state and local budgets, I believe that the key to eliminating most burdensome infringements is a successful suit forcing states and localities to pay, out of their general tax funds, for any "reasonable" regulations.

The paperwork burden on FFLs is passed on to me when I purchase a gun, but the "benefit" of denying gun ownership to those not entitled is a benefit to the public. I should not be forced to pay for it.

At such time as this financial burden is shifted, many laws will be repealed.

[apillar]

The next gun rights case that should be tackled is the Lautenberg Amendment which strips Americans of their 2nd amendment rights with only an unsubstantiated accusation to a judge, who then issues a "Domestic Violence Protection" order barring gun ownership, even though the person who the DVP is against has not been convicted or even charged with any crime. Basically, their constitutionally protected rights are stripped by judicial fiat.

Now that the court has ruled that the 2nd amendment IS an individual right, I can not see the Lautenberg amendment standing. By that reasoning, a judge could strip you of your right to free speech if someone claimed you had made "reckless" statements in the past and "might" yell fire in a crowded theater.