Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling: Good/Bad? Constitutional or not?

[Dr.3D]

An email from the GOA on this subject.

The result is great, but the method of getting there is very dangerous.

The 14th Amendment is illegal since it was not ratified properly. Look it up. So using the 14th Amendment to justify anything is improper since it is not a legal Amendment.

The GOA seems to think it was just the thing to do.

I received this email just a few minutes ago.

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


Monday, June 28, 2010


Gun Owners of America rejoices in the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Otis McDonald and against the city of Chicago. In doing so, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the right to keep and bear arms (in the Second Amendment) to all 50 states.

"This is great news for Otis McDonald in Chicago and even greater news for citizens that are languishing under restrictive gun control laws across the country," said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.

GOA is still pouring through the ruling and will have a more detailed analysis later. But in brief, the Court ruled that:

* "The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

* "A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty."

These are arguments that GOA has been making for years. In fact, Gun Owners of America submitted an amicus brief in this case and was pleased to see that Justice Clarence Thomas made some of the exact same arguments (found in our brief) in his concurring opinion.

The decision by the Court today will have tremendous ramifications for the restrictive gun control laws in California, New York City and elsewhere.

Gun owners, please stay tuned!

 

[Pericles]

Jack Hunter would agree with you.

Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution
YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution

Jack Hunter needs to read Article V, as the Marshall court did not, and that is how the whole BoR only applies to the Feds got started in any case - you are quoting a Federalist judge.

The effect of the 14A is to overturn the Barron and Dred Scott SCOTUS decisions as Justice Black recognized.

 

[IPSecure]

Chicago mayor Daley Vows New Gun Law...

 

[RCA]

Here's the Big Question: Does the Constitution protect "individual rights" or does it prevent the Federal Government from making laws that affect "individual rights." Big difference.

“The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states,” explained Jack Hunter in an article entitled "Gunning Down the Constitution" for The American Conservative. “The 2nd amendment does not apply to the Chicago gun ban because the federal government is not involved — nor should it be.” So while the ban may be “ridiculous,” Hunter claims people should oppose the Court striking it down “because this decision would trample the most important right of all — that of the states to limit the power of the federal government.”

But not so, according to constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has prevailed in three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Both the original Constitution and the Second Amendment made abundantly clear that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ applies to every level of government, without exception, throughout the United States,” he wrote in an analysis of the case for The New American entitled "The Second Amendment, The States, and the People": “Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure ‘the Militia of the several States.’”​

Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution

In this case, both he and Ron Paul are wrong. It takes a certain amount of lateral thinking to discover and support Ron Paul, it takes an even greater amount to admit he's wrong on the few occasions that he is.

 

[FrankRep]

In this case, both he and Ron Paul are wrong. It takes a certain amount of lateral thinking to discover and support Ron Paul, it takes an even greater amount to admit he's wrong on the few occasions that he is.

No one is "Wrong" in this case, just different philosophical viewpoints

 

[Promontorium]

My opinion isn't in the poll. It is a bad thing because it doesn't give the individual enough, and now it is set at a supreme court level, meaning the only way to reassert the 2nd Amendment is to go back to the supreme court again, which considering this court's opinion, won't be anytime soon.

Sadly, the supreme court has ruled DC's current laws are just. DC's law effectively make gun owning nearly impossible, and can limit what you can buy to muskets for god's sake.


If your idea of America allows states to strip people of their rights, then death to your America, because it is a lie, not a Republic, a federation of liars claiming to have rights, but supporting none.

My signature is what America is on paper, not this fantasy rightless federation you staters promote, nor this nightmare boundless amoral police state we have now.

 

[RCA]

No one is "Wrong" in this case, just different philosophical viewpoints

They are wrong legally AND philosophically. Legally because, well, that's not what the Constitution says. It's funny, we in the liberty movement love to use the phrase "in plain English" when determining the meaning of the Constitution, but we don't use this same phrase when one of our venerated leaders makes an error. This is sadly very sheepish of us and makes me question how far we are getting as a movement.

Philosophically because they are saying man-made laws (assuming it existed) are greater than natural laws. In other words, this is akin to saying the colonists had no right to revolt because it's "what the law said". Samuel Adams supported natural rights by revolting, the SCOTUS supported natural rights through lots of cumbersome proceedings and hearings. The end result being the same, more freedom for us.

EDIT: It's this kind of circular debating that make me lean towards anarcho-capitalism, though I'm not fully supportive yet.

 

[fgd]

This can only be good. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution says that "all states are prohibited from making a gun law more restrictive than X." Previously, X is "nothing". Now, X is "complete ban". This is good.

 

[Southron]

I put this option in the poll because, as I read the anti-Federalist papers more and more, this was one of their contentions against the Constitution. The Federalists won on this issue, and the Supreme Court kept its appellate jurisdiction over all cases. However, the anti-Federalists made the case that the Supreme Court will always rule on behalf of the party it represents (federal government) and will strike down State laws often, in order to grant the federal government legislative jurisdiction over those areas in the future. (See especially: Anti-Fed #80 and #81.)

Those guys were quite prescient, weren't they?

And liberty has suffered immeasurably for it.

The Supreme Court as it exists today is a terrible flaw in the Constitution.

As much as I admire the work of our founders, I think they made a big mistake with the judiciary.

 

[Pericles]

I'd suggest that the Anti-Federalists realized the real danger is that anything could be put into the Constitution via the amendment process, and thus would be the supreme law of the land. Prohibition, direct election of Senators, income tax, and such amendments were done via a legal process and gutted much of the natural limits on what should have been the power of the federal government.

The BoR was an attempted "per-emptive strike" to try to build in safeguards for the protection of the people, or give the means of protection to the population.

 

[sailingaway]

Thanks for the links. I will respond when I have read the opinion. I can imagine finding that result and still being respectful of state rights (using the due process clause, for example), but there are ways they could do it and cause states rights problems as well.

Snicker.....I live in California.... wonder if I'll be able to get a concealed carry license now...?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Is the McDonald Gun Decision Good for Liberty?

Posted by J.H. Huebert on June 28, 2010 09:22 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60452.html

Having reviewed what the McDonald gun decision says, the next question is: Is it good for liberty?

The short-term answer is certainly yes. Chicago has one of the worst gun bans in the country, so if it’s loosened at all, then Chicagoans will enjoy more liberty. Presumably very restrictive bans in others cities will also fall, which is also good.

What about that disgusting language in the decision reassuring governments that the right to bear arms “does not imperil every law regulating firearms”? Some libertarian friends have suggested that this might embolden certain state or local governments to pass more gun laws, but this argument isn’t persuasive.

Places that don’t have more stringent gun control now haven’t been holding back because they heretofore thought that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an unqualified right to keep and bear arms. Until now, governments everywhere had every reason to think they could pretty much get away with anything because cities like Chicago had already done it. The reason some places, such as my home state of Ohio, have a lot of gun freedom (relatively) is because the people there want it, and that’s not going to change.

One might also argue that the decision is bad because it is centralist — it is the federal government telling the states what to do, which the Founders never intended, and which, arguably, the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers intended only to a limited extent. I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but that question was not at issue in this case. The reality is that the Supreme Court long ago assumed the power to strike down state and local laws that violate certain rights, and it’s not going to lose that power anytime soon no matter what. The only question now is whether it will use that power in a way that benefits liberty, and here it did so.

Of course, future Supreme Court decisions may make clear that the exceptions to the rule are so expansive as to render Heller and McDonald meaningless. And none of this is to say that we should be grateful to the Supreme Court for letting us do what we had a right to do in the first place, or that we should count on the Court to protect our rights in the future. Where you see the Supreme Court’s true character is in its decisions on the extent of the federal government’s power — which it has held to be virtually unlimited, with the exception of a few carved-out “rights” such as this one. If the Constitution is going to get us out of that problem, it won’t be through more Supreme Court cases, but through nullification.

 

[.Tom]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.

 

[John Taylor]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.

Some people on here are confused regarding the scope of the powers granted to various levels of government, and conflate the relatively greater constitutional power of the several states with the ability to "take rights away". That's a mistaken and unfortunate conflation.

 

[phill4paul]

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So here it is spelled out that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. Meaning all states within the Union. The natural rights listed are not only a limit on the federal powers, but also a guarantee to the people.

To argue otherwise would mean that the natural rights defined within the Constitution could be thrown out the window by any state within the Union.

Right to jury trial? Maybe not in SC.
The right of a woman to have an equal vote? Maybe not in NH.
The right for those of Hispanic decent to have a vote? Maybe not in AZ.
The right to be secure in your home or papers? Maybe not in CA

Ad Naseum.....

Given this then it is up to the federal government to intervene in cases where states violate the Law of the Land. The Constitution.

Now that doesn't mean that states, citizens and their representatives do not have the right to grant unto themselves powers greater than that ascribed within the Constitution. Just no less.

Therefore a state or city or municipality should not create a law which inhibits a right to bear arms. For the right to bear arms is implicit in the "law of the land."

Federal laws which limit the freedom ascribed within the Constitution should hold no merit without an amendment.

Therefore a state should be able to write into its own Constitution that its citizens have the right to bear automatic weapons. Or tanks.

Now in truth I am an anti-federalist. However,and unfortunately, the point for debating that is long past.

I personally could not give a shit about Chicago and whether they would allow guns to their citizens. I think the citizens should well be able to take up arms and demand that their "representatives" STFU. Without the federal authorities intervening.

However, I don't think that will be happening. At least not anytime soon. Until Americans are willing to take to their own defense we are left with what we are left with....

So in the words of Jefferson ""Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

 

[malkusm]

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So here it is spelled out that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. Meaning all states within the Union. The natural rights listed are not only a limit on the federal powers, but also a guarantee to the people.

To argue otherwise would mean that the natural rights defined within the Constitution could be thrown out the window by any state within the Union.

Right to jury trial? Maybe not in SC.
The right of a woman to have an equal vote? Maybe not in NH.
The right for those of Hispanic decent to have a vote? Maybe not in AZ.
The right to be secure in your home or papers? Maybe not in CA

Ad Naseum.....

Given this then it is up to the federal government to intervene in cases where states violate the Law of the Land. The Constitution.

Now that doesn't mean that states, citizens and their representatives do not have the right to grant unto themselves powers greater than that ascribed within the Constitution. Just no less.

Therefore a state or city or municipality should not create a law which inhibits a right to bear arms. For the right to bear arms is implicit in the "law of the land."

Federal laws which limit the freedom ascribed within the Constitution should hold no merit without an amendment.

Therefore a state should be able to write into its own Constitution that its citizens have the right to bear automatic weapons. Or tanks.

Now in truth I am an anti-federalist. However,and unfortunately, the point for debating that is long past.

I personally could not give a shit about Chicago and whether they would allow guns to their citizens. I think the citizens should well be able to take up arms and demand that their "representatives" STFU. Without the federal authorities intervening.

However, I don't think that will be happening. At least not anytime soon. Until Americans are willing to take to their own defense we are left with what we are left with....

So in the words of Jefferson ""Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

 

[Dr.3D]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

So it is implying that some other body can make a law that limits the freedom of speech since Congress can not? I doubt that is the case.

If a certain state made a law prohibiting the freedom of speech, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The great myth perpetuated by the states right aspect of the liberty movement in general is the Constitution does not apply to individuals when in reality this is the greatest distinction between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Hear here Phill!

I am very disappointed that the Feds had to intervene to make this right, but that is the way the system is supposed to work, as a last resort the Fed will come in and prevent States from infringing against natural rights.

I would rather deal with a neighbor infringing on my property with his fence-line between the two of us alone, but if he adamantly refuses then I'd have to get the courts involved. I would be supremely disappointed in having to take it that far, but take it that far I would -- as a last resort and if there were no other remedy available. That's how I see the Chicago case.

The 2ndA does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress." it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PERIOD. That means (given the Art6 supremacy clause and the 10thA spelling out of delegated powers) that if you live in the United States and are a citizen of one of the several States, that you have the natural right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

This SHOULD be dealt with at the State level, no question. Bur if the States refuse to deal with it, then Federal Court is the only remedy available.

Just as with the theoretical example of the property line above, I am very disappointed and deeply saddened that it had to go that far, but that is the proper process and the residents of Chicago have every right to demand he natural rights they are guaranteed by being citizens within the USA.

Just like with the property line, now the issue will bear more official scrutiny than before the authorities were brought in to resolve the dispute, and that scrutiny is certainly unwelcome. But given the other choice (no guns or an infringed property) it is the only correct choice that remains on the dilemma.

I agree with the decision, but I am deeply disappointed it had to go that far and am very, very concerned for the official scrutiny this may bring in the future.

I picked "It is a good thing, but I have reservations about the language and the implications for federalism" which is not an exact fit, but the closest available.

 

[phill4paul]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

In what way malkusm?

Re-edit: Give me a sec......life is intervening and I'll get back to you on this.