By now I'm probably one of the last gunbloggers to bring you the good news that the Chicago gun ban has been declared unconstitutional.
Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban
In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.
A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.
Damn those conservative judges! Chicago's ban on handguns had been working so well on containing violence in the city, too... While it's excellent that the ban was struck down, once again it's rather frightening to see the vote so close. 5-4 against something so clearly unconstitutional? Four judges cannot even comprehend the concept of "shall not be infringed"? It's pretty amazing that this was even an issue - given how completely and utterly the ban has failed at even making a dent in violence, one would think they would cheerfully give it up in the wake of the Heller decision.
Chris in Texas sent me this link to a PDF of the actual ruling (thanks Chris!). I've just got to post this:
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. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535— which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of theFourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
This is excellent news indeed. Those of us living in (ahem) less-than-2A-friendly states have a ray of hope that our states' oppressive gun laws will be next. Personally, I would love to see MA's Approved Firearms Roster and Assault Weapons Ban thrown on the ash heap of bad legislation; I can only hope that our permitting system will someday be addressed.
Baby steps today, but certainly in the right direction - good news today folks...
That is all.
10 comments:
Hooray !
Gonna be tough for the citizens to find a local range to practice on though.
the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.
I hate that they keep getting this wrong. The BOR doesn't "Give" us a damn thing. It says "the gov. can't do X"
I'm still lovin' it though.
Now we need the word "BEAR" recognized in all 50 states.
The awesomeness is there, but it is small. Yes it is a win, but some of it is headed back to district court, and of course 4 judges voted against the second...
I celebrated by picking up the finest revolver that thirty four dollars could buy, hit the range to plink, and stopped for a greaseburger at McDs.
Man - I wish I could just drop in a pick up a $34 revolver...
To those of us in regressive states, chin up! There's *pending* cases in CA challenging both their approved handgun roster and their shall-issue permitting scheme that were on track to overturn both based on the 9th circuits incorporation of the 2A. I *think* they're still at the state court level, though.
I think licensing is the first issue for MA. The MA SJC case that held that denial or revocation of LTC (which is required to possess a handgun in the home, for those reading in free America) was not a punishment and did not require due process. Heller+McDonald makes it pretty clear that this is unconstitutional.
Dude! I had my post, with a link, up at 10:32. Although you win with your post title.
I think what zeeke42 says may be the biggest effect in MA. Although it probably won't be immediate. Eventually the unfettered discretion of the licensing authority will be appealable and they will have to show due process not whim as the basis of their decision.
As a former inhabitant of MA, I think the first thing that needs to fall is the license to merely own. Requiring a citizen to pay a tax to enjoy a protected civil right has already been established as unconstitutional (see poll tax).
The arbitrary and capricious nature of the discretion of the license issuing process also won't survive.
There's not a lot of MA's gun laws that will survive the strict scrutiny required for fundamental rights.
I still carry my expired MA Class A license in my wallet. The process to get it turned me into a gun rights advocate.
Tirno, keep in mind that the poll tax is an ENUMERATED prohibition.
Te poll tax was prohibited in federal elections directly by the 24th Amendment in 1964, and this prohibition was extended to the states via incorporation by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, you CAN tax an enumerated right. That is why authors still pay income taxes, publishers still pay corporate taxes, and it is fully constitutional for the state to charge a sales tax on newspapers and cable.
The poll tax prohibition of the 24th Amendment was done by amendment because there is nothing that prohibits taxing the exercise of a particular right per se.
However, this does present a contradiction that the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA relies on. Since it IS legal to tax constitutionally protected behavior, then the power to tax can not be equal to the power to destroy, despite the fact that such is often quoted.
In other words, a tax that amounts to an effective ban on a constitutionally protected activity would be prohibited, whereas a tax that is reasonable in amount would likely pass muster. . . so long as it isn't a tax on casting a ballot.
$200 tax to acquire an NFA weapon in 2010? $5 transfer/registration tax on an AOW in 2010? Those are perhaps defensible, given the buying power of $200. . . Likewise an excise tax (such as licensed gun manufacturers pay, and by "pay", I mean "pass on to their customers", like any OTHER tax on a business) at a reasonably moderate rate is probably defensible.
$200 tax to do the same thing in 1934? Doens't pass the smell test -- a $200 tax in 1934 IS an effective prohibition. 100% or 200% excise tax on ammo (as has been proposed by Democrats in Congress before)? Nope. . .
Post a Comment