Conservative Viewpoints

"Government is not the solution…it is the problem" -Ronald Reagan



  • ReoAd

    mainstreet_ad_pdf.jpg

    C&LPhoto

The Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, under assault by the Obama administration, receives some support from the Supreme Court

Posted by Stephen on June 28, 2010

The Supreme Court issued a ruling today that will expand to the states the high court’s historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms. The ruling followed an hour-long argument heard in the court last Tuesday.

Tuesday’s lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008, who now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago’s handgun ban doesn’t allow him to adequately protect himself.

Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

“In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship,” Gura told the Court.
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. For once in recent memory, the Constitution is victorious. The Courts decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and will be attacked by gun control groups, and likely strike down Chicago’s handgun ban which was supported overall by four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.

Lee Rose, writing for Fox News and following the Court in this case, wrote that Gura argued the language of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

Rose added that it wasn’t until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply–or incorporate–parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution’s first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn’t appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

The discussion over “liberty” was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. “I don’t see how you can read — I don’t see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment…was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant.”

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city’s handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision’s Second Amendment guarantee doesn’t comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

“The right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Feldman said.

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. “I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn’t have the right to trial by — by jury.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: