The Second Amendment is now incorporated to cover state and local governments according to today’s opinion released in McDonald vs. Chicago. According to SCOTUS Blog, the decision has been released today, and we’ll have more details as the opinion is shared with the public.
In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position. Read more
Many interest groups make the point in presidential election years that it’s not just a candidate’s personal views on issues that matter, but also concern for who is appointed to the judiciary. Rarely has the need to pay attention to these consequences been so obvious for gun owners as the last week.
The obvious issue is the Supreme Court and McDonald v. Chicago. Yes, we will all wait as the Justices deliberate and issue their final decision on how the Second Amendment will be incorporated. But for political junkies, who didn’t hold their breath as they read the headline generated from rumors that Chief Justice John Roberts would step down? (For more information about how that rumor was generated from a 1L class at Georgetown to headlines, read this account.) If the rumor had proved to be true, suddenly the Heller 5 would be no more, and the litigation that will likely define the contours of the Second Amendment would be at risk since the likely replacement would not be friendly to our rights.
Another reason for gun owners to be concerned was on display at the Huffington Post this week. Former federal judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote about the recent issues with carry in Starbucks and put his real feelings about the right to bear arms on the record. His perception of those who carry firearms for protection is a stereotypical and disconnected vision of uneducated, racist, and trigger happy men. While we are fortunate that Judge Sarokin has been off of the bench for more than a decade, the idea that more appointees like him may still be deciding future Second Amendment cases is disturbing. (Judge Sarokin was appointed by President Carter to the United States District Court (N.J.) and elevated to the United States Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) by President Clinton.)
While most voters only think about the Supreme Court when they think about judicial concerns at the ballot box, Judge Sarokin is a reminder that federal appointments at various levels can make a difference in issues we care about. Once the McDonald decision does come down, it will leave many detailed questions about the permissible scope of gun control laws to be answered by lower courts. However, those appointments rarely receive the scrutiny and attention of Supreme Court nominees.
Oral arguments were heard today by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL. At the center of the case is Chicago’s effective ban on handgun ownership. Several other issues are addressed in the petition as well. These include mandatory firearm registration, mandatory reporting of changes to registration status of any firearm, and the rule which renders any firearm whose registration has lapsed no longer eligible for registration.
Lawyers from both side were given the chance to argue their sides before the Justices today, but the overwhelming public opinion is that the Justices will side with the same division as the Heller opinion in a 5 to 4 decision. In Heller, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito sided in favor of second amendment rights while the remaining Justices dissented. The case is important to both sides as it will have sweeping effects on the ability of states to restrict citizens second amendment rights.
Filed on the same day the Heller decision was decided, this case differs, if only slightly. Washington, D.C. , the center of the Heller case, is of direct federal jurisdiction rather than a city with local and state jurisdictions applying. During arguments today, the divide remained
Link to the case briefs: McDonald v. City of Chicago, IL, Docket No. 08-1521
The coverage is wide, but here are some relevant articles:
By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.
New York Times: Supreme Court Still Divided On Guns
The Supreme Court seemed likely to rule for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, a move that would give federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.
The Wall Street Journal: New Ammunition for Gun Rights
To no one’s surprise, the justices gave no sign that they’ve changed their minds in the past two years. Several talked as if the issue when they rule won’t be whether to restrain gun control nationwide but how much room to leave for “reasonable” state and local limits. And that, indeed, is the important question.
Our view on the Second Amendment: Extend gun rights, but leave room for reasonable limits
Gun owners across the country will be watching the McDonald case closely on Tuesday. Though, admittedly, the pro-liberty folks in areas with heavy gun control will likely be paying more attention to the arguments. Because Pennsylvania doesn’t have the extreme gun control conditions of Chicago and we have protections under the state constitution, we’re unlikely to see a direct impact from the case in the Keystone State.
However, never let it be said that Pennsylvania doesn’t have a voice in the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In fact, we’re lucky to have more than 30 pro-gun lawmakers standing up for our rights in this case.
At the federal level, 15 members of our Congressional delegation signed on to a brief in support of the law-abiding citizens who would like to own a handgun in Chicago. This total includes both Senators and every member of Congress except the Philadelphia-area representatives, and those representing Pittsburgh and Erie.
Coming down to the state level, the most high profile supporter of the McDonald case is Attorney General Tom Corbett who signed a brief with more than three dozen other Attorneys General. However, it’s easy to miss the state legislators who were pro-active in signing on to various briefs in favor of the plaintiffs.
Five female lawmakers joined a brief outlining the concerns of women who face state and local governments that seek to limit their right to self-protection. In addition, one Senator and 11 Representatives put their names on a general state legislator brief that points out a clear direction from the Supreme Court in favor of incorporation will better serve the states and help to secure the fundamental rights of their citizens.
So if you have time on Tuesday, take a few moments to thank the following lawmakers for standing up for our rights. I’ve included links to social media homes where you can publicly thank them if you have an account:
Federal
Senator Arlen Specter
*Twitter
*Facebook
Representative Jason Altmire
*Facebook
Representative Christopher Carney
*Facebook
Representative Charlie Dent
*Facebook
Representative Jim Gerlach
*Twitter
*Facebook
Representative Paul Kanjorski
*Twitter
*Facebook
Representative Patrick Murphy
*Facebook
Representative John Murtha
Representative Joe Pitts
*Twitter
*Facebook
Representative Todd Platts
*Facebook
