SCOTUS Chicago Case Could Have Wide Implications

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... al-causes/

I'd really suggest reading the above article, it's 4 pages but they're well worth it and very informative.

The brief version is that the SCOTUS is evaluating the Constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns in light of the recent Heller decision that established the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. This might seem pretty straightforward and partisan, but the lead counsel against the city is arguing using a clause of the 14th Amendment known as "privileges and immunities" that if legally recognized, could clear the way for greatly enhanced civil rights protections, possibly even Constitutional protections for access to abortions and gay marriage. He seems completely aware of this, and is in fact in conflict with some of the more conservative groups who are otherwise behind supporting the case, who'd prefer to use the more limited "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment to still force the states to respect the 2nd Amendment, but with less impact on other issues.

I for one am thrilled by this development, one of the harder parts about being a libertarian leaning independent is often having to choose between causes such as gay rights and gun rights, very rarely can I be satisfied on all fronts, but this is looking to be one of those times. The Court has given every indication that they are going to overturn Chicago's ban no matter what, all that remains to be seen is how they go about doing so and what the implications of their method will be. I'm doubtful that they'll go all the way and overturn the 1873 Slaughterhouse decision, but I hope they do, the court got it wrong all those years ago, and here's the perfect opportunity to set that right.

I admire your optimism and genuinely am interested in seeing if a larger distribution of guns will generate universal peace. Since I live outside the USA I can observe the results with a certain equanimity and personal calm as I am not a participating guinea pig.

Unfortunately it seems unlikely that the ban will be overturned under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. None of the justices took well to Alan Gura's arguments and Scalia, who is the strongest supporter of the 2nd Amendment on the supreme court and wrote the Heller majority was particularly hostile. a link to the transcript is below (PDF).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 8-1521.pdf

I've actually realized I don't care about gun legislation a whole lot. I personally have no need of or use for firearms, and I tend to think that most people don't need guns. I don't particularly mind if other people own guns so long as they don't point them at me.

Laws such as found in Chicago, the State of Illinois and California have always confounded me. All of my legal education establishes that a state can offer MORE protection than afforded in the U.S. Constitution, but never LESS.

The level of gun control these places have enacted have blatantly infringed on what the Second Amendment clearly protects. I know past high court rulings have prohibited banning guns but allowed "regulation," but that only resulted in places attempting to "regulate" guns out of existence.

The Supreme Court should decided in short order that the Chicago laws are unconstitutional. I can't see how they would reason otherwise.

Another interesting piece of gun related law being argued is that several states have in effect challenged congress's authority under the "interstate commerce clause" of the constitution by passing laws exempting guns that never leave the state from federal law. I've long felt that congress has abused it's authority by declaring virtually anything they please as "interstate commerce", so I'd love to see those states succeed regardless of my own interest in the gun aspect. I was surprised to hear that my own solidly blue state has it's own version of the bill pending, and it would actually be pretty cool for me personally, since a lot of my ideas would have trouble at the prototype phase with the federal National Firearms Act, and the law passed I could pretty much build what I want so long as I don't cross state lines with it.