[ Video Courtesy of NTDTV ]
On Monday, the Supreme Court announced its decision on the application of the Second Amendment in a landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, will now incorporate the Second Amendment, which guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms, to all states in the country.
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the Second Amendment and struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned the possession of handguns at home, under the ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense.
Thus, when several Chicago suburb residents were prohibited from owning handguns due to the city’s handgun ban, the residents filed suit against Chicago. They claimed that the city of Chicago violated the Second Amendment and the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
The Bill of Rights was applied only to the federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. As a result of the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, most, but not all of the rights guaranteed in the bill are also applied to state and local governments.
The Second Amendment was not incorporated against the states, as the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller only protected the right under federal law. However, the case of McDonald v. Chicago brought up the debate once again, so the Supreme Court had the task of deciding “whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states under the Due Process Clause,” as stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In Alito’s majority opinion, he stated, “A provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states. … We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the handgun ban, was repealed by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer each filed a dissenting opinion. Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined them.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation’s leading Second Amendment advocate, said in a statement that it “applauds the Supreme Court’s decision” and believes the decision will give supporters of the Second Amendment “hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.”
Josh Horwitz, executive director of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), a gun control advocacy group, said in a press release, “By extending Heller to restrict state and local gun laws in McDonald, the Court has limited the ability of Americans to determine what public safety laws best suit their communities. We are now likely to see a new wave of frivolous lawsuits attacking gun laws across the country.”
However, CSGV also emphasized that Justice Alito, as he stated in his majority opinion, would still allow “common-sense restrictions on firearms to survive,” including forbidding felons and mentally ill people from having guns.
Horwitz said his group believed “that the interpretation of the Second Amendment iterated by the Supreme Court today will still allow states and localities to deploy well-crafted firearms restrictions to protect public safety.”
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the Second Amendment and struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned the possession of handguns at home, under the ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense.
Thus, when several Chicago suburb residents were prohibited from owning handguns due to the city’s handgun ban, the residents filed suit against Chicago. They claimed that the city of Chicago violated the Second Amendment and the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
The Bill of Rights was applied only to the federal government prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. As a result of the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, most, but not all of the rights guaranteed in the bill are also applied to state and local governments.
The Second Amendment was not incorporated against the states, as the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller only protected the right under federal law. However, the case of McDonald v. Chicago brought up the debate once again, so the Supreme Court had the task of deciding “whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states under the Due Process Clause,” as stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In Alito’s majority opinion, he stated, “A provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states. … We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the handgun ban, was repealed by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer each filed a dissenting opinion. Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined them.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation’s leading Second Amendment advocate, said in a statement that it “applauds the Supreme Court’s decision” and believes the decision will give supporters of the Second Amendment “hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.”
Josh Horwitz, executive director of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), a gun control advocacy group, said in a press release, “By extending Heller to restrict state and local gun laws in McDonald, the Court has limited the ability of Americans to determine what public safety laws best suit their communities. We are now likely to see a new wave of frivolous lawsuits attacking gun laws across the country.”
However, CSGV also emphasized that Justice Alito, as he stated in his majority opinion, would still allow “common-sense restrictions on firearms to survive,” including forbidding felons and mentally ill people from having guns.
Horwitz said his group believed “that the interpretation of the Second Amendment iterated by the Supreme Court today will still allow states and localities to deploy well-crafted firearms restrictions to protect public safety.”
Friends Read Free