Supreme Court Hears Gun Case
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case.
Otis McDonald, the named plaintiff in the case, has sued the city of Chicago over their 28-year-old ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Alan Gura, the attorney from 2008’s famous Heller Case, argued the case for Mr. McDonald.
The National Association for Gun Rights joined the fight and filed a “friend of the court” amicus brief on behalf of Mr. McDonald. (You can read the full amicus brief by clicking here.)
Alan Gura, in response to questions from Justice Sotomayor, summed up the case well when he said, “…States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.” A full transcript of yesterday’s oral arguments is available online, by clicking here.
Now that the oral arguments have been heard, legal analysts believe a decision could be handed down by mid-summer.
In theory, if Chicago’s handgun ban is indeed overturned, it would open the door to additional lawsuits against cities, municipalities and potentially even states that ban entire classes of weapons.
In practice, this ruling will likely have very little effect on the day-to-day lives of most gun owners. If the Heller Decision taught us anything, even a ruling in our favor doesn’t mean that gun control advocates won’t work tirelessly to restrict our rights.
After the Heller Decision, D.C. passed draconian restrictions on firearms possession, and still bans the entire class of semi-auto handguns. I fully expect Chicago to follow suit, by passing a host of restrictions and regulations on the right of Chicago’s residents to defend themselves with handguns.
It does, however, mean that gun owners can make a role for themselves in the process. By being involved in state and local elections, gun owners have a direct impact on the politicians and the legislation they pass.
Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines. Gun owners must be involved in the political process to affect real, Constitutional change.
(For a refresher on the McDonald case, the Associated Press has a good write up on the plaintiffs in the case; David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov.)
Keep Shot guns out of the hands of School officials.
I would personally think,how can a city even get away with a ban like that which does infringe on our constitutional rights.At least I would think the city should put it in a referendum and let the people vote on it.If the court rules in favor of the ban,that would only mean one more right of the people taken away only advanced by the agenda of the courts,which means we are living a life inside of tyranny,Which is getting easier to believe everyday.
These “anti-gun bigots are doing exactly what any socialist take over does = first disarm the people, then take away their rights! Unarmed people are ‘subjects’ armed people are ‘citizens’
,how can a city even get away with a ban like that which does infringe on our constitutional rights
You totally miss a point here, our government no longer CARES A WHIT about any Constitutional Rights!! get that through your heads! The Government DON’T CARE BOUT NO RIGHTS!! only it’s own agenda of turning the U.S. into 4th world utopia.
????? ?????? ????….
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case…..
If the second amendment language of “shall not be infringed” were used allowing some other activity such as voting rights, abortion, etc., it would be applied very broadly and would not have the narrow interpretation so many attempt to apply. The subject matter shouldn’t alter the application of the words used in the second amendment. I believe the words were meant to be applied broadly. If not, restrictive words would have been used.
If the amendment stated that restrictions on guns “shall not be infringed,” the anti-gun people would scream if any exceptions of any kind were attempted.
Note: I used abortion only as an example since many would argue that the wording should be applied broadly and have no restrictions if the exact same wording were used for that subject. This is not to imply abortion should be a right.