Good news for gun rights - the Supreme Court ruled today that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to apply to State & Local governments. As a result, the Chicago Gun Ban and all similar gun bans are unconstitutional. This is good news for all freedom loving Americans everywhere. This is only the beginning, but it is an excellent start!
Yesterday was a big day for the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court, where justices heard arguments on both sides of the McDonald vs City of Chicago case on whether or not to incorporate the right to keep and bear arms to protect we the people against existing infringements by State and Local governments. A ruling on this Supreme Court case is expected by Late June or early July.
You can read the transcript and find additional information from Downrange.tv, Arms & the Law, John Lott, and the Volokh Conspiracy. I'll add additional links below as I find them.
From the Arizona Citizens Defense League:
The Arizona Citizens Defense League has joined with other pro-rights individuals, groups and several district attorneys in the filing of an “amicus (friend of the court) brief” with the United State Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the most critical Second Amendment case since the Heller decision upheld our individual right to keep and bear arms.
In April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable to all state and local governments. However in McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and that state and local government laws regarding firearms are not affected by the Second Amendment.
In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case. We are asking the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. You can find a copy of the amicus brief at: http://tinyurl.com/McdonaldAmicus.
Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, is following the McDonald case closely and has posted a plain English summary of the issues at stake at his website: http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm . Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting our amicus brief, which was submitted by California attorney Chuck Michel (http://www.michelandassociates.com/).
You can also read more about the McDonald case at the Second Amendment Foundation’s website: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today! http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html
Copyright © 2009 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
Read the NRA's friend of the court brief. Related Press Release from the NRA-ILA:
On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city's ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.
The follow-up cases were filed by NRA and other organizations against Chicago and several of its suburbs. Each of these suits was aimed at the same goal: establishing that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.
In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe our brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment (to read the brief, please click here).
The McDonald case will be argued in February 2010. NRA members should be proud of our efforts to bring this issue to the court's attention through the many lawsuits we brought to overturn local bans on gun ownership and self-defense immediately after Heller. We are hopeful that McDonald v. Chicago will achieve another major victory for gun owners' rights.
I've called both of my Senators & my Representative. If you don't know who yours are you can look them up.
From the NRA-ILA:
Friday, November 13, 2009
As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief by Members of Congress. And we need your support for this important effort next week.
The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments. This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.
The brief describes Congress’s debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and points out the many occasions from 1866 to 2005 when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a right of all Americans, and taken action to protect that right against actions such as gun confiscation and predatory lawsuits. It also makes the case for Congress’s interest (under its constitutional war powers) in preserving an armed citizenry as part of America’s national defense.
When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens. And it did in the historic Heller case last year when 55 Senators and 250 Representatives signed an amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right. Now every Senator and Congressman who supports the rights of all Americans should step forward to be heard by signing this brief in the McDonald case.
The brief must be filed within the week, so we need your immediate help! On Monday through Thursday, please call your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
From the NRA-ILA:
Wednesday, September 30, 2009More from the SAF, SCOTUSBLOG, Washington Post, and Ammoland.
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court's decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States. The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.
"The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.
"It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. "It’s time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."
-nra-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
New Poll data shows that the majority of gun owners, independents, and small business owners oppose the Sotomayer Judicial Nomination. My question is why did 30% of the gun owners polled support her Nomination? Perhaps party loyalty is blinding some of them due to the fact that 84% of the Democrats polled support her nomination, while roughly 50% of US households own guns.
Update 1: For any gun owners currently finding themselves in support of the Sotomayer confirmation, please watch this short excerpt from her testimony before the Senate and perhaps you'll consider a position change. If not I guess you only consider your ownership of guns to be a Government Granted convenience rather than a fundamental right.
Senator Jim DeMint said that during a meeting he had with Judge Sotomeyer she was "unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights."
I have my doubts that Obama would ever nominate a defender of the right to keep & bear arms, so unfortunately this bad news does not surprise me.
John Lott debunks false claims of Obama, Daley, & Fenty in their reaction to the recent DC v Heller Supreme Court Decision.
Michael Bane just released a special edition of Down Range Radio with interviews featuring multiple experts discussing yesterdays DC vs Heller Supreme Court Decision.
Wayne LaPierre discussed the DC vs Heller decision on Fox News yesterday:
H/T to Down Range TV.
In the DC v Heller case by a margin of 5 to 4 the Supreme Court ruled today that yes, the Second Amendment does in fact protect the individual right to bear arms. Full Decision available here as a pdf. From page 67 of the PDF, labeled as page 64 on the document itself is the decision:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLERH/T to Down Range TV.
Opinion of the Court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Excellent write up by Robert Levy comparing the DC vs Heller & the US Government vs Miller Supreme Court cases.
The most recent episode of the Gun Rights Advocates Podcast (Episode 79 released Friday March 21st) features a discussion Mark & I Had about last weeks DC vs Heller Supreme Court case. Neither of us are legal experts, but we had a nice discussion nonetheless about the things we found interesting. If you have not yet listened to the audio of the DC vs Heller Case, I highly recommend it. Every time that I listen to it I catch things that I missed the first time. Links to the Real Audio version of the video/audio stream as well as to mp3 versions & transcript are here as well as being available in Episode 78 of the Gun Rights Advocates podcast dated March 18th.
I've listened to the Oral Arguments (Requires Real Player) & my unprofessional opinion is that DC's argument to keep their handgun & functional firearm ban was incredibly weak. But don't take my word for it, go ahead & listen so that you can judge for yourself. You can also view an official (but subject to review) transcript of the Oral Arguments.
So far today both the NRA & John McCain have come out in favor of the Supreme Court upholding the lower court ruling that struck down the DC gun ban as unconstitutional. The Silence on the case from both Hillary & Obama is deafening. Fox News has released a piece appropriately titled: "In Second Amendment Case, High Court Majority Appears to Support Individual Right to Own Guns"
Update 1: Michael Bane has now released the oral arguments as individual mp3 files broken down by the three individuals who argued the case. Tom Gresham has also released the audio in mp3 format.
Update 2: SAF press release & NRA Heller page.
Update 3: Alan Korwin overview of the Oral Arguments & ABC interview with Wayne LaPierre.
Update 4: The Ruling is IN that YES 2nd Amendment Protects Individual Right to Bear Arms.
Next Tuesday morning (March 18th) at 10AM Eastern time (7AM Pacific) a historic Second Amendment case will be heard in the Supreme Court of the US: Docket #: 07-290 titled: District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller. Heller was the party of the original lawsuit seeking to overturn DC's unconstitutional handgun & functional firearm ban who was found to have standing in the case because he had requested a handgun permit that was denied based on the DC law. Below is the exact wording of the question that the Supreme Court will be considering:
CERTIORARI GRANTEDEach side of the case (City of DC asking the Supreme Court to overturn last year's lower court ruling that found its handgun & functional firearm ban to be unconstitutional, and Heller asking the Supreme Court to sustain the lower court ruling), is scheduled to be alloted half an hour to plead their case and answer questions of the Judges. The US Solicitor General will also get 15 minutes to make arguments. If no extension of time is granted than it will all be over sometime around 11:15 AM Eastern Time (8:15 AM Pacific).
07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .
An interesting article. It profiles the individuals both for & against the DC ban against handguns & functional rifles in the home, including the plaintiffs of the Heller case fighting the ban scheduled to heard in the Supreme Court next Tuesday March 18th, & those funding the legal costs. It does appear to have at least a slight bent in favor of the Ban, but overall appears to at least be attempting to be fair & balanced. Below is a small section from the article about Gillian St. Lawrence (pictured above), one of the plaintiffs of in the original case against the DC gun ban:
"In 2000 St. Lawrence started the process of registering a shotgun. It took two years before she completed background checks, filled out police-department paperwork, bought the shotgun, and fitted it with the blue plastic device that disables it until it’s unlocked . . . St. Lawrence adds, “People break into houses around here all the time.” She alone is licensed to use the shotgun—one person per firearm under DC law.
“It’s Paul’s job to call the police,” she says. “It’s my job to use it.”
If she can unlock the trigger in time.
San Diego CA District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the DC handgun ban but claims she is a "Strong Supporter" of the Second Amendment. If that is her idea of Strong Support, I'd sure hate to see what her Strong Opposition would look like!
As they say, with friends like her, who needs enemies?
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed their brief in support of Heller & the Second Amendment for the DC vs Heller Supreme Court Case. (also known as the Parker vs DC case as it was called in the DC courts) It is very well written & worth a read.
A few the many briefs in support of Heller & the 2nd Amendment:
Subscribe to my blog,
