Free Republic

Topping last week's legal stories was the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment -- which the Supreme Court just two years ago interpreted to protect an individual right to own a gun -- also protects the individual right to own a gun against state and local interference. Many people were unimpressed, regarding this as a statement of the obvious. Others -- like Rush Limbaugh -- were alarmed, noting that what should have been an obvious statement of a right specifically protected in the Constitution nonetheless made it by a bare 5-4 vote in the...

Can we stop pretending that liberal jurisprudence is anything but warmed over politics in a judicial robe?  Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the left-leaning justices will vote what they believe regardless of what a law's intentions were.  Concepts like 'stare decisis' (the legal principle that obliges judges to respect precedents established by prior decisions) that were so important during the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts, mean nothing to the sitting liberal justices.  Each of the left leaning judges voted as if The District of Columbia vs Heller...

The Supreme Court yesterday gunned down the Windy City's attempt to undermine the Second Amendment rights of its residents. In the closely divided McDonald v. Chicago decision, the justices expanded on 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by making it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies in all 50 states, not just federal enclaves like the District. Law-abiding gun owners can find a lot to celebrate in this decision. Nonetheless, the court left a number of unsettled issues that will form the new battleground for gun rights for years to come. The...

Second Amendment: Chicago is deciding whether to prosecute a great-grandfather and Korean War veteran under its handgun ban. He refused to be a victim, and now there's one less armed thug roaming the streets. What's the problem? If the 80-year-old vet living on the city's West Side didn't have the gun the city said he shouldn't have, he and his 83-year-old wife and 12-year-old great-grandson might have joined those victims of gun violence about whom gun-control advocates constantly chirp. The vet obtained the gun in violation of the city's handgun ban after a prior incident in which the couple was...

Gun Rights: Not happy with interfering in our internal affairs by savaging Arizona's new immigration law, the president of Mexico wants to shred our Second Amendment too. And the mayor of Chicago wants to help. There stood Mexican President Felipe Calderon before Congress, blaming America for the violence on his side of the border and, among other things, the guns that fuel the Mexican drug war that has claimed more than 23,000 Mexican lives since he took office in 2006. Rather than taking responsibility himself, he shoved the blame on America. It would all stop, he implied, if America would...

WASHINGTON -- It is said, more frequently than precisely, that the reasons the Supreme Court gives for doing whatever it does are as important as what it does. Actually, the court's reasons are what it does. Hence, the interest in the case the Supreme Court considered last week... --snip-- And even Justice Antonin Scalia, who recognizes that "substantive due process" is intellectual applesauce, thinks it is too late to repudiate 137 years of the stuff... --snip-- First, protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was frequently mentioned by those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment,...

Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment? Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms? That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (Alan Korwin) 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. -- 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution This will be a landmark decision Last year, The Supreme Court upheld our right to bear arms in the Heller...

The Supremes are considering another 2nd amendment case which might have far reaching consequences (in a good way) on this particular battle front. George Will has a good column this week which takes a look at the history of the fight and what the implications of McDonald v Chicago might be. It probably will result in a routine ruling that extends a 2008 decision and renders dubious many state and local gun-control laws. What could — but, judging from the justices’ remarks during oral argument, probably will not — make the ruling momentous would be the court deciding that the...

Here are some links to the Chicago Gun Ban case before the Supreme Court. It's looking good for us! Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban OrdinanceIf the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom? The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other ImplicationsSo while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement...

A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Friday showed that most Americans do not believe that city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns. According to the survey, 69% of Americans do not believe cities can prevent citizens from owning handguns. Only 25% believe that cities do have such a right. The survey comes as the Supreme Court is wrestling with a major case questioning whether Chicago's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. The high number stems from the fact that the survey found that 70% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an...

I am dismayed that the City of Chicago's ban on handguns may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The second amendment to the Bill of Rights reads as follows: 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. The amendment talks about a well-regulated militia and thus, it would seem that the right to bear arms is directly related to a militia. In other words, those serving in a militia - or in the present - a branch of the Armed...

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the big laugh line of the hour at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearings in McDonald v. Chicago. That case’s outcome will decide whether the Second Amendment rights vindicated in 2008’s D.C. v. Heller apply to states and localities. Scalia amused the crowd by asking a question that has perplexed some legal scholars and gun activists both for and against McDonald lawyer Alan Gura’s general goal of applying Second Amendment protections to all levels of American government. To get the joke, such as it was, you first need the background about what was at stake. The Bill of...

Otis McDonald, 76, stands before the Supreme Court, which Tuesday heard arguments in his suit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns. In a 5-4...

On the USSC and the handgun ban in Chicago. I enjoyed listening to the audio of the Heller arguments but unfortunately, they did not release any audio for today’s arguments. This afternoon I posted the full text of the oral arguments within a few minutes of being released and I’ve taken the time to read through the 77 pages during some free time tonight.

Justices Signal They're Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right A high court majority reviewing a handgun ban in Chicago indicates that it sees the right to bear arms as national in scope, and can be used to strike down some state and local gun regulations. By David G. Savage March 3, 2010 Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court justices, hearing a 2nd Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, signaled Tuesday that they were ready to extend gun rights nationwide, clearing the way for legal attacks on state and local gun restrictions. The court's majority appears almost...

In 1861, America began a war to end slavery. Shortly thereafter, we began another battle — Reconstruction — to end the incidents of slavery, culminating in the ratification of the Thirteen, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. But from today’s arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, you would never know any of that had ever occurred, let alone that the Fourteenth Amendment — including specifically its Privileges or Immunities Clause — was enacted for the specific purpose of putting an end to a Southern tyranny that included the systematic disarmament of newly free blacks and their white supporters in order to...

As they hear arguments in a case to against Chicago's nearly 30-year-old handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court appears willing to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. ~snip "We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said. "This is the first time; once you start doing this, you'll start breaking down local laws, county and even state laws – unlawful use of a weapon," Mayor Daley said.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed ready to rule that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that for the first time would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing Second Amendment rights. At oral arguments Tuesday, the court considered whether its 2008 decision voiding the District of Columbia handgun ban should be extended to the rest of the country. Because Washington is a federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on laws adopted by states had been unclear.

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment? Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms? That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments will be heard this Tuesday, March 2, with a decision expected in June. I’m hitting the road tomorrow (for two Texas conventions) and will be at the Court for eyewitness reports. The circus atmosphere does not appear to be in the air — yet this...

Gun owners aren't the only ones who should pay close attention to the "McDonald" Chicago gun-ban case, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court March 2. If properly decided, the case could restore an important legal tool to protect the rights of small business owners and homeowners who face oppressive state and local government regulations. Because the Supreme Court in McDonald may consider reinvigorating what is known as the "Privileges or Immunities clause" of the 14th Amendment, those engaged in civil rights battles nationwide may soon have a new arrow in their quiver to better defend the rights...