The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2010, 08:24 AM   #1
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
The McDonald Decision

In approximately 40 or so minutes, the decision will be published.

For a live account as it happens, go here.

Additionally, the SCOTUSBlog will have a scholarly debate on the meaning of the decision. Read it here.
Quote:
In anticipation of tomorrow’s decision in the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUSblog is setting up an expert debate on the issue. We have asked scholars and lawyers with expertise on either the Second Amendment or gun control laws to briefly analyze the opinion, with a focus on its implications for gun control and legal questions left open. These commentators come from both sides of the case, if they have taken sides at all. We expect to start getting submissions soon after the opinion is handed down, and we will post them as soon as we get them.

We are still reaching out to contributors and expect more by tomorrow. All the McDonald posts will be available together in a special section on the lower sidebar.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:05 AM   #2
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
Cant connect for some reason, overloaded, perhaps?
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:11 AM   #3
FiveForSure
Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 95
5-4 in favor of McDonald!
FiveForSure is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:12 AM   #4
FiveForSure
Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 95
Here's what I got from SCOTUSblog before it essentially shut down from the traffic:

10:04

Erin:
Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Erin
10:04

Tom:
Gun rights prevail
Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Tom
10:05

Erin:

The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
5-4
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:05

Erin:
Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
10:05

Tom:
The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
10:06

Erin:
The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
FiveForSure is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:14 AM   #5
FiveForSure
Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 95
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Reading through now, perhaps someone with a better understanding of SCOTUSese can help out?
FiveForSure is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:18 AM   #6
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
Quote:
ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and
III–B, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ.,
joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which
ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., join. SCALIA, J., filed a
concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and SO-
TOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
Glad I voted for Bush.
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:28 AM   #7
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,196
It will be most interesting to see what Chicago does now that their handgun ban has been overturned. Dailey has indicated, prior to the decision, that he would do what he had to to keep the ban in force.
JWT is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:29 AM   #8
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
Daley can try, but he'll likely get hammered with dozens, if not hundreds, of individual lawsuits that will bleed Chicago even dryer.

Surprising how the court vote split out, isn't it?

Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:34 AM   #9
grey sky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2007
Posts: 324
Can't conect to the links lots of traffic I guess. 5 to 4? Pitifull. Still a win. Now what?
grey sky is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:35 AM   #10
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
Anyone see Helmke's quote on the Brady Campaign webpage?

“We can expect two things as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v the City of Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail.”

Gotta give Brady people credit... They certainly have wonderful imaginations when it comes to what is actually happening nationwide...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:42 AM   #11
TJH3781
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2009
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 138
Chicago also bans the possession of most handgun ammunition, so that maybe fight #2!!!
TJH3781 is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:46 AM   #12
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,520
After the decision on Heller vs DC, I'm surprised that this decision fell 5-4 as well.

I'm sure the Brady Campaign anticipated this result and as mentioned, will clearly try to spin it in their own best interest.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:48 AM   #13
Stephen_Brady
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2010
Location: Illinois, and I want concealed carry
Posts: 21
I want the NRA and other gun-rights groups to come into Illinois with hordes of lawyers and fight for concealed carry. If this isn't the time, there will never be a time ...
__________________
_________
"I've been all over the world, and seen refugees fleeing all manner of harm. They all have one thing in common ... they are unarmed."
- Me
Stephen_Brady is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:58 AM   #14
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
“We can expect two things as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v the City of Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail.”
Did the brady campaign hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, AKA Baghdad Bob, to write their press statements because that sound a lot like:

"There are no American Troops in the city ad we will drive the americans to the sea."
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 09:59 AM   #15
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Justice Thomas got it right and Kagen will be a piece O' krap - she is anti gun and ................ I think the Brady idiots are probably right and all the stupid laws like the restrictions here in Kalifornia will be upheld as reasonable restrictions. Hope I'm wrong.

Last edited by jmortimer; June 28, 2010 at 10:11 AM.
jmortimer is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:04 AM   #16
ZeroJunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,508
Just looking at CNBC and the gun manufacturer stocks are going up on the news.
ZeroJunk is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:12 AM   #17
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: Richmond VA - home of a street full of second-place trophies.
Posts: 151
I'm only up to page 21, but Alito has ripped Chicago & Oak Park a new butthole that begins at the heels and goes to the crown of the head.

Applies the 1866 Freedmans Act and as I see it creates a "protected class" of gun owners. Maybe not as protected as race, sex, etc. but certainly more protected than automobile owners.

Alito notes several times that self defense "in the home" was NOT the limit of Heller - merely the paramount place of exercise of the right. I'm thinking this is in fact clarification of Heller - in which case DC will be collectively ****ting its pants as they tear out their hair.

I've got to read it over again with a note pad at hand, and then do some cross-checking, but my impression is that McDonald is a bigger win than we had any right to expect. With the majority split between due process and privileges it could mean that eventually both will come into play. I'm happy with due process but would really have liked to see privileges prevail.

Best of all - actually 2 bests of all 1) Slaughterhouse does not apply, and 2) Cruickshank and Miller are essentially removed from stare decis. Hooray!

stay safe.
skidmark is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:21 AM   #18
Rampant_Colt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,478
whoooo hooo!!

__________________
member of an elite paramilitary organization: Eagle Scouts
Rampant_Colt is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:30 AM   #19
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to dis-band and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of thesemilitias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen, supra, 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimatelydecided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members.
I like this part of the opinion. You could argue this sets the bar fairly high for regulation of the RKBA. Essentially members of a criminal enterprise were not disarmed because they had a consitutional RKBA so they were instead disbanded.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:31 AM   #20
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
Took a brief peak. Breyer's dissenting opinion, and adopted by Ginsburg and Sotomayor is scary. Very anti-gun. Stevens was in a scholarly duel to the death with Scalia which had little to to with the 2nd Amendment while Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas hopped on the Alito train. Thomas, I really failed to understand his point but from what I gathered he was entertaining legal fiction. This must have been a really entertaining.

I need to re-read carefully, specially the opinions from Thomas, Stevens and Scalia.
Maromero is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:32 AM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Just a caution, let's keep the pure politics out of it. I deleted one post that strayed that way.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:33 AM   #22
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
This is a step in the right direction for sure!

Stephen_Brady, I to would love to see CC in IL soon and your right about the time is NOW!
Xfire68 is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:34 AM   #23
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 8,048
Glad I voted for George W. Bush too. True, if we get even one more liberal judge on the bench, after Kooky Kagan, all is for naught. But, lets celebrate victories when we can! And it is time to celebrate!!!!
Skans is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:34 AM   #24
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not theonly constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisionsthat impose restrictions on law enforcement and on theprosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“Theexclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), whichsometimes include setting the guilty free and the danger-ous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that theCourt’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases . . . willreturn a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659.
Another nice nugget. Essentially public safety is not enough to throw out constitutional protections including the RKBA.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 28, 2010, 10:37 AM   #25
horseman308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 448
Quote:
Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers.
Mike, I too am just "shocked."

However, I have read that their ideological differences are based on disagreement as to what the framers' clear intent really was. The more conservative ones lean toward a strict constructionist point of view focusing on the idea that the constitution's basic tenets are unchanging and valid for all time, while the more liberal ones lean toward the view that the constitution is a "living document" and that the framers intended it to be adjust as the country went on. So, in some respect, their decisions were based on both ideological lines and based on the framers' clear intent (or at least their interpretations of the framers' clear intent).
__________________
You only take one shot at a time - make it count.
horseman308 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16234 seconds with 7 queries