McDonald v. City of Chicago


N

nogods

Active member
Justice Alito authored the opinion. Reversed and remanded
 

I think everybody is catching this this morning. I noticed Dave and RedHat posted something on this as well,
 
However, there was an important limitation in the majority opinion:

"Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defensewithin the home.

That doesn't prevent future cases from expanding the right to self defense beyond premises, but it does give states and municipalities the ability to restrict permits to premises until a court says otherwise.
 
seeley booth said:
from what i read you can carry any where
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they said in the opinion. The right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS. The sentence "most notably in the home" means "especially" in the home, the way I interpret it.

All this print that we see about how undefining the opinion was is hilarious to me. What is more defining than the Court stating that the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental" to the citizen?

Dailey's antics up there is a ruse to try to say how limiting the opinion was. It wasn't limiting AT ALL! And the NRA is backing him up in their statements too, by saying we still have a lot of work to do. Yeah, you sure have! You have a lot of work to do in order to justify your existence now. You see those big salaries going away, don't you!
 
Chief Justice Roberts remanded the case of McDonald vs The City of Chicago back to the lower court to reevaluate their earlier decision based upon the SCOTUS decision this past week, so McDonald and Petioners haven't won anything yet, Thats why Mayor Charles (Al Capone) Daly and his corrupt City Counsel voted even tougher gun restrictions Friday July 2nd. In essense Daly has spit on the SCOTUS decision, and his new restrictions are now very, very unconstitutional! If we had a President from another part of country, he/she would remove Mayor Daly from office, but Obama is a part doing business "The Chicago Way". :mad:
 
The court was even more limiting in its holding than it was in the dicta:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. ... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller"

So the court held that the second amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense. That doesn't mean that the second amendment does not protect other rights, it just means that is the limit of this court's holding.

The Nordyke case addresses this issue head on. In Nordyke, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the second amendment applies to the states, but then ruled that a prohibition of possession of all firearms on all public was a valid restriction. The Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion awaiting the outcome of McDonald.
 
nogods said:
The court was even more limiting in its holding than it was in the dicta:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. ... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller"

So the court held that the second amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense. That doesn't mean that the second amendment does not protect other rights, it just means that is the limit of this court's holding.

The Nordyke case addresses this issue head on. In Nordyke, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the second amendment applies to the states, but then ruled that a prohibition of possession of all firearms on all public was a valid restriction. The Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion awaiting the outcome of McDonald.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. I read the opinion, and while they mentioned for home defense, they ALSO stated that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to citizens rights. They said nothing about HOME DEFENSE being the ONLY reason and PLACE to own and keep one. And I didn't think the wording was ambiguous either.
 
Last edited:
If more people understood that the right to self defense and therefore to keep and bear arms was closely tied to civil rights, they would perhaps vote for another party? (clearing throat with a sarcastic e'hum) Then again, as long as some are subject to brainwashing by liberal politicians, liberal teachers, liberal media....they will continue to be brainwashed.
 
GOV5 said:
I don't agree with you. I read the opinion, and while they mentioned for home defense, they ALSO stated that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to citizens rights. They said nothing about HOME DEFENSE being the ONLY reason and PLACE to own and keep one. And I didn't think the wording was ambiguous either.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a lot of dicta in the opinion of a much broader right, and the "fundamental right" statements could even be classed as rationale, but the fact of the matter is that case law is binding only as to the actual holding - no more, and no less.

A lower court faced with a decision like that in Nordyke could:

1. Decide that it is bound by the limits of the actual holding in McDonald and rule that the 2nd only applies to the states to require permits be issued for self defense in the home; or

2. Decide that the rationale and dicta of the SCOTUS favors a more expansive right than the particular holding in McDonald.

Either of those two would be equally valid under our judicial system.

But it is very clearly stated in McDonald that the court limited its holding to possession of a handgun in the home for self-defense - no more, no less. As a mater of law that is all there is for now. That does not preclude further expansion, but there is no more than that in the McDonald holding.

Think of it like getting a permit to build a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house on your lot. The permit doesn't prevent you from seeking a further permit to add a bedroom or a bath, but the first permit is clearly limited to a 3 bedroom 1 bath house, even if the permit office said, in granting the permit "you lot is big enough to qualify for 5 bedroom, 3 bath house." The fact is, your current permit only authorizes a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house.
 
nogods said:
Yes, there is a lot of dicta in the opinion of a much broader right, and the "fundamental right" statements could even be classed as rationale, but the fact of the matter is that case law is binding only as to the actual holding - no more, and no less.

A lower court faced with a decision like that in Nordyke could:

1. Decide that it is bound by the limits of the actual holding in McDonald and rule that the 2nd only applies to the states to require permits be issued for self defense in the home; or

2. Decide that the rationale and dicta of the SCOTUS favors a more expansive right than the particular holding in McDonald.

Either of those two would be equally valid under our judicial system.

But it is very clearly stated in McDonald that the court limited its holding to possession of a handgun in the home for self-defense - no more, no less. As a mater of law that is all there is for now. That does not preclude further expansion, but there is no more than that in the McDonald holding.

Think of it like getting a permit to build a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house on your lot. The permit doesn't prevent you from seeking a further permit to add a bedroom or a bath, but the first permit is clearly limited to a 3 bedroom 1 bath house, even if the permit office said, in granting the permit "you lot is big enough to qualify for 5 bedroom, 3 bath house." The fact is, your current permit only authorizes a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house.
Click to expand...

It says nowhere in the document that self defense/owning a gun is guaranteed ONLY in the home. You are incorrect about your interpretation.
 
Heller-McDonald - Scope Too Narrow and AMBIGUOUS...

For the record since Heller in 2008 D.C. has been successful in prohibiting carrying firearms/weapons including but not limited to: HANDGUNS anywhere other then the Home...
WHY?

Because the scope of the ruling was too narrow...
AND WAS AMBIGUOUS...

The issue in Heller was whether or not handguns could be possessed in the home, unlocked and not otherwise disabled in the District of Columbia for the purpose of self-defense...

The key issue in McDonald was whether or not handguns could be possessed in the home, unlocked and not otherwise disabled in any state or other municipality in the Country...
AND state/local governments as well as the fed were prohibited by the Second Amendment from banning/disabling handguns in the home for the purpose of self-defense...

...Municipal respondents’ (City of Chicago) remaining arguments are at war with our (SCOTUS) central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home...

...It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms...

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

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Once again in McDonald like Heller the scope of the ruling was so narrow and ambiguous that the folks in Chicago like those in D.C. have only won a very narrow victory...
In D.C. after the much over celebrated Heller ruling; two years later... IF you live long enough and are financially secured enough to get through the approval process; you can now have a loaded revolver in your home for the lawful purpose of self-defense...

Note the key phrases they have used in both rulings and elsewhere making things even more ambiguous like LAWFUL PURPOSE, SPORTING PURPOSE, SELF-DEFENSE PURPOSE, BANNING THE SPECIFIC TYPE/CLASS OF WEAPON "HANDGUN" for self-defense in the home is Unconstitutional...

That leaves a big ambiguous can of worms to address; like specifically what types/classes of weapons can be banned? and when and where?
What lawful purposes ? sporting purposes?, self-defense purpose?, what constitutes a sporting purpose? full-auto competition? with what limitations?, what constitutes a self-defense purpose? is duty to retreat required for a self-defense purpose?
IS there STILL A Tyrannical Government Removal Purpose? What type/class of weapons are suitable for that purpose?
Open Carry Purpose? Concealed Carry Purpose?

They said it was fundamental, but not without limitations...
Sorry... can't get more ambiguous then that...

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT, MUST NOT READ ANYMORE INTO "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ...

Poll: Should States Be Allowed To Ban Handguns?
Link Removed

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/first-fundamental-principle-of.html
 
The key issue in McDonald was whether or not handguns could be possessed in the home, unlocked and not otherwise disabled in any state or other municipality in the Country...
AND state/local governments as well as the fed were prohibited by the Second Amendment from banning/disabling handguns in the home for the purpose of self-defense...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I totally disagree with this premise. McDonald was not about that at all! McDonald was about a gun ban in the City of Chicago and Oakland Park that prevented Otis McDonald from purchasing and owning a gun for self defense. You have fallen prey to media tactics of Anti's that want to try to limit this ruling that it was to own a gun JUST for the home. This case was VERY different from Heller in that regard.

I don't see any ambiguity at all in the wording either. All the Court said about not striking down reasonable gun laws was that states will still have the ability to control guns from felons, mentally ill, etc., and that there will still be places States and Cities will be able to say you can't carry...like schools, municipal buildings, churches, etc. They didn't say you could not KEEP and BEAR ARMS. They DID say the STATES can't prohibit that! They reference several times in the opinion that KEEP and BEAR ARMS is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to every citizen. What is it about that language that you, and the rest of the Anti-gun media find so ambiguous? To me, that's pretty plain and clear.

You are never going to see an opinion from the court so specific that it says: " you can carry, open or concealed, anywhere you want to go on American soil, without any restrictions whatsoever from State or Local official laws."

Plus, the Court doesn't HAVE TO say that. the U.S. Constitution already does! In McDonald, all they did was RE-AFFIRM that! McDonald and Heller were two VERY different cases, and the attorneys for Mc Donald made sure of that.
 
GOV5 said:
The key issue in McDonald was whether or not handguns could be possessed in the home, unlocked and not otherwise disabled in any state or other municipality in the Country...
AND state/local governments as well as the fed were prohibited by the Second Amendment from banning/disabling handguns in the home for the purpose of self-defense...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I totally disagree with this premise. McDonald was not about that at all! McDonald was about a gun ban in the City of Chicago and Oakland Park that prevented Otis McDonald from purchasing and owning a gun for self defense. You have fallen prey to media tactics of Anti's that want to try to limit this ruling that it was to own a gun JUST for the home. This case was VERY different from Heller in that regard.

I don't see any ambiguity at all in the wording either. All the Court said about not striking down reasonable gun laws was that states will still have the ability to control guns from felons, mentally ill, etc., and that there will still be places States and Cities will be able to say you can't carry...like schools, municipal buildings, churches, etc. They didn't say you could not KEEP and BEAR ARMS. They DID say the STATES can't prohibit that! They reference several times in the opinion that KEEP and BEAR ARMS is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to every citizen. What is it about that language that you, and the rest of the Anti-gun media find so ambiguous? To me, that's pretty plain and clear.

You are never going to see an opinion from the court so specific that it says: " you can carry, open or concealed, anywhere you want to go on American soil, without any restrictions whatsoever from State or Local official laws."

Plus, the Court doesn't HAVE TO say that. the U.S. Constitution already does! In McDonald, all they did was RE-AFFIRM that! McDonald and Heller were two VERY different cases, and the attorneys for Mc Donald made sure of that.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you have not read very many of my posts or you would not be trying to lump me in with the antis...




My personal view is that the Second Amendment stands on its own...
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that...

There are no exceptions...
AS I have stated a multitude of times previously...
The Second Amendment does not state "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...
IF your zip code is x...
OR your standing at y...
OR the type or class of weapon you desire to have is z...
OR if said weapon is carried openly or concealed...
OR if you have enough time & money to get through the applicable federal, state, local and other municipality's draconian licensing, registration, regulation, training they deem this week as "fundamental - due process" to exercise your inherent right...
Link Removed

ITS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE...

If there are conditions, (Read Infringements) its not a right...

One of the key tenets of the "Unabridged" Second Amendment is to be able to remove a tyrannical government not unlike our own current Socialist In Chief & Company's Utopia...
IF only police, military and politicians... thanks to the so-called FOPA of 1986 and now Heller & McDonald... can have any type or class of weapon the Second Amendment has been neutered and made ambiguous and conditional...

As the saying goes "The Second Amendment Ain't About Duck Hunting"...

Be that as it may...

McDonald & Heller were very narrow in scope as D.C. and Chicago have clearly demonstrated...
Both of whom have literally spit in the face of SCOTUS days after each ruling...

Days following the McDonald Supreme Court decision, Chicago said f/u with their new ordinance...

The approval came four days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively tossed out Chicago's longstanding ban on handguns. Mayor Richard M. Daley introduced the gun restrictions Thursday and aldermen (Chicago City Council) approved the ordinance 45 to 0.

Key provisions of the ordinance:

•Firearm sales will be banned in the city.

•Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.

•To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.

•Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling (the home). It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.
Link Removed

As soon as the Heller Supreme Court decision became final in July 2008, the District of Columbia Council passed an “emergency” law that allowed residents to own a pistol only “for use in self-defense within [the] home.”

The new law also allowed the District to charge would-be handgun owners multiple, unlimited fees for registration, fingerprinting and a “ballistics identification procedure.”

The District also kept its peculiar definition of “machine gun,” which bans not only firearms capable of fully automatic fire, but also firearms that shoot “or can be readily converted or restored to shoot …

semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.” (Emphasis added.) To make matters worse, D.C. interpreted this language to ban any semi-automatic that uses a detachable magazine, because someone, somewhere, might have a magazine that would hold 12 or more rounds of ammunition.

Finally, once a new handgun owner suffered through the District’s bureaucratic process, he could only assemble, unlock and load the gun “while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the registrant’s home.”
Link Removed

DC residents say it's too hard to get a gun​

The Supreme Court ruled last week that states and localities cannot ban handguns intended for self defense. That could overturn local bans, just the way a similar ruling two years ago ended a ban in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of district residents have taken advantage of the new law. Still, many residents complain it's still too difficult to get a gun in the nation's capital.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128248370

So basically IF you live in D.C. or Chicago and you have enough money and you live long enough to get though their approval, training, licensing, regulation process, you can have a revolver in your home for the purpose of self-defense under the criteria they have set-forth...

THIS IS A SIDE EFFECT OF THE NARROW & AMBIGUOUS HELLER-MCDONALD OPINIONS...
That will ripple across the country...

UNTIL WE THE PEOPLE PUT A STOP TO IT, WTFU & TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC...

Because the only type or class of weapon in either case that was clearly delineated was handguns...
and the only location that was specified was in the home...
and the only purpose that was specified was self-defense...

the anti's are free to put any prohibition, licensing, registering, regulating, etc., they want in place short of banning (THEIR DEFINITION OF HANDGUNS) handguns for self-defense in the home...

IF SCOTUS had stated that keeping & bearing arms is a fundamental basic right and that the Second Amendment means what it says and that you simply cannot, must not read anymore into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ...
Then Heller & McDonald would have been more significant...

AND WOULD NOT BE AMBIGUOUS...

BECAUSE they stated its fundamental except under due process of law ... which means whatever the mob-rule majority (Read Democracy) want it to mean at any given point in history vs. what the Constitutional Republic we were founded as meant it to mean...
The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/200...nciple-of.html

Instead... as both the P.O.S. Alan Gura Esq., (IN MY VIEW) and the opposition requested in both cases...
The opinion was intentionally left narrow and only addressed...

  • Type or Class of Weapon of - HANDGUN...

  • Location - IN THE HOME...

  • Purpose - SELF-DEFENSE...

Just because you or I want it to be more broad then it is, does not make it so...
 
Yeah, I keep getting hung up on the term "personal protection in the home." We will see ...
 
"IF SCOTUS had stated that keeping & bearing arms is a fundamental basic right "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

They did rule that. It's in the opinion.


"Just because you or I want it to be more broad then it is, does not make it so...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

I'm not wishing for anything, I'm basing my statements on what was in the ruling. Those rules Chicago is trying to enact will be shot down. A Wisconsin DA has already come out and said he will no longer prosecute gun law cases. He stated that the Supreme Court made it very clear that a citizen has the right to own a gun and carry it. He even stated that he said concealed carry or open carry was OK. When asked about other places enacting gun laws to try to get around the ruling, he said they are all unconstitutional. So I am not the only one that read the opinion as it was written.

Don't spread the wrong message. That's all I'm saying to you. The Anti's want us to believe that the SCOTUS ruling was limited, so they can keep doing the same old ricks. It wasn't limited at all!! And nowhere in the ruling did it say that a gun was to be owned and kept ONLY in the home for Home defense ONLY. If you can pull out that statement in the ruling and post it here, I would appreciate it, because it would change my entire view of the ruling. I just didn't see that statement in there when I read it.

You see, I don't pay any attention to what is talked about and "reviewed and analyzed" by "experts" on TV, or in magazines. First of all, I don't agree with their premise; that I am too stupid to be able to interpret anything on my own,or read an opinion, so THEY have to be there to tell me what it said so that my feeble brain will understand. I have already seen the attempts by the "experts" to imply the "limits" of this ruling. That propaganda will not work on me, and I want to spread my message as far and wide as I can, to not listen to those Anti-gun agenda spin artists and their attempts to lie to you.
 
GOV5 said:
"IF SCOTUS had stated that keeping & bearing arms is a fundamental basic right "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

They did rule that. It's in the opinion.


"Just because you or I want it to be more broad then it is, does not make it so...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

I'm not wishing for anything, I'm basing my statements on what was in the ruling. Those rules Chicago is trying to enact will be shot down. A Wisconsin DA has already come out and said he will no longer prosecute gun law cases. He stated that the Supreme Court made it very clear that a citizen has the right to own a gun and carry it. He even stated that he said concealed carry or open carry was OK. When asked about other places enacting gun laws to try to get around the ruling, he said they are all unconstitutional. So I am not the only one that read the opinion as it was written.

Don't spread the wrong message. That's all I'm saying to you. The Anti's want us to believe that the SCOTUS ruling was limited, so they can keep doing the same old ricks. It wasn't limited at all!! And nowhere in the ruling did it say that a gun was to be owned and kept ONLY in the home for Home defense ONLY. If you can pull out that statement in the ruling and post it here, I would appreciate it, because it would change my entire view of the ruling. I just didn't see that statement in there when I read it.

You see, I don't pay any attention to what is talked about and "reviewed and analyzed" by "experts" on TV, or in magazines. First of all, I don't agree with their premise; that I am too stupid to be able to interpret anything on my own,or read an opinion, so THEY have to be there to tell me what it said so that my feeble brain will understand. I have already seen the attempts by the "experts" to imply the "limits" of this ruling. That propaganda will not work on me, and I want to spread my message as far and wide as I can, to not listen to those Anti-gun agenda spin artists and their attempts to lie to you.
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned Wisconsin...
While its nice that one County's DA is stepping up to the plate, there are much bigger hurdles to leap...
It is now 2010, and Wisconsin is one of only two states that completely prohibits anyone but police officers and sheriffs' deputies from carrying concealed weapons for self defense...
Wisconsin Concealed Weapons, The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

Moving on...

You say Chicago & or D.C.'s and others shenanigans will be struck down... that also proves my point ... IF the opinions were not so narrow in scope and ambiguous they would not even be able to consider such things...

The Cold Hard Facts Are Heller & McDonald were too narrow in scope and ambiguous and leaving too much subject to interpretation; the fact alone that we are arguing about it proves that; seeing that neither of us remotely resemble an anti or are easily influenced by others...

Actually, I am basing my opinion on Heller & McDonald on the facts, my own reading & comprehension of the complaints, oral arguments and the final opinions of both cases; supported by a fellow Nevadian, whom happens to be a noted authority on Constitutional Law, Yale Educated Constitutional Attorney, Former U.S. Army Ranger and founder of OathKeepers: Stewart Rhodes...

Chicago is simply mirroring what D.C. has been able to get away with for two years now since the Heller opinion...

WHY?

Because BOTH the stinking Heller & McDonald opinions were too narrow in scope and ambiguous, leaving too much to subject to interpretation; which means that SCOTUS will either have to make a more broad opinion STATING & REAFFIRMING that the Second Amendment stands on its own and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is unconditional; which they should have to begin with OR (Short of Congress Making Things Right...) we are going to forever be going to SCOTUS to clarify; WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/HOW SPECIFICALLY is the Second Amendment FUNDAMENTAL...

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense."...
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller."

Thus in Heller; SCOTUS stated the Fed cannot ban the possession of handguns for the purpose of self-defense in the home...
In McDonald; SCOTUS simply stated the same applies to the States, Cities and other Municipalities...

...[nothing] requires the Court to express an opinion on whether the Fourteenth Amendment places any limit on the power of States to regulate possession, use, or carriage of firearms outside the home...

...I further agree with the plurality that there are weighty arguments supporting petitioners’ second submission,insofar as it concerns the possession of firearms for lawful self-defense in the home...

...As noted at the outset, the liberty interest petitioners have asserted is the “right to possess a functional ... handgun, within the home.”...

...Petitioners’ complaint centered on their desire to keep a handgun at their domicile—it references the “home” in nearly every paragraph...

...[in] Heller plaintiff sought only dispensation to keep an operable firearm in his home for lawful self-defense...

...the Court’s [Heller] opinion was bookended by reminders that its holding was limited to that one issue...

...The distinction between the liberty right these petitioners have asserted and the Second Amendment right identified in Heller is therefore evanescent. Both are rooted to the home...

...What petitioners have asked is that we “incorporate” the Second Amendment and thereby establish a constitutional entitlement, enforceable against the States, to keep a handgun in the home...

...No. 08–1521. Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home....

...Limiting the federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms to the home complicates the analysis but does not dislodge this conclusion...

...the interest in keeping a firearm of one’s choosing in the home—is not necessarily coextensive with the Second Amendment right...

...the Second Amendment right identified in Heller and its newly minted Fourteenth Amendment analogue are limited, at least for now, to the home...

...“the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”...

...we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States...

...Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson (Chicago petitioners) are Chicago residents who would like to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense but are prohibited from doing so by Chicago’s firearms laws. A City ordinance provides that “[n]o person shall . . . possess...

...Colleen Lawson is a Chicago resident whose home has been targeted by burglars. “In Mrs. Lawson’s judgment, possessing a handgun in Chicago would decrease her chances of suffering serious injury or death should she ever be threatened again in her home.”...

...McDonald, Lawson, and the other Chicago petitioners own handguns that they store outside of the city limits, but they would like to keep their handguns in their homes for protection...

...Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home...

...It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms...


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

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 309 (members: 0, guests: 309)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top