McDonald Won


Unless you have been living under a rock, you know about the McDonald victory. I would be remiss not to mention it on the blog because although it is political in nature, the decision will have significant impact on the future of gun culture and the gun industry.

I highly recommend reading through the homepage of Snowflakes in Hell. Sebastian and Bitter have done a great job in covering this landmark decision.

Ed Friedman said and I agree with him …

If you want to read the most brilliant put-down of an anti-gun opinion ever, read Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion to the McDonald decision, which, by the way, was decided 5-4 in favor of incorporating the Second Amendment against the states. Scalia starts on page 52.

Related

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • http://www.predatorwild.com Heath

    Hopefully the comments here don’t get out of hand and force the comments to be shut down. It is a big victory, but also very concerning as 4 SCJ’s voted that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. As others have mentioned, can you imagine the outcry of people if it were the 1st Amendment they were arguing instead of the 2nd?

  • SoulTown

    I was excited to check out the Scalia’s concurring opinion, but re-discovered why I chose to stay in Political Science instead of law school. Can somebody help me out and give me some pointers as to where to start looking? I can always use a good pro-gun argument…

  • Lance

    Good news now if they can kill Kaliforinas gun bans.

  • xamoel

    congratulations on this GREAT decision for all american gun-enthusiasts!
    i wish we had supreme courts like this in europe!

  • jdun1911

    There are properly a lot of people wondering what this case means, so I going to do my best to explain it.

    The Bill of Right (BoR) only applied to the Federal Government and not the states. In order for the Bill of Rights to applied to the state it needs to be Incorporated via the 14th amendment. The 14 amendment was erected after the US civil war. One of it purpose is to enforce the BoR onto the states.

    The main reason why the 14th amendment was made was to stop state oppression on minorities and one of the best tools is the BoR.

    Amendments that has already been Incorporated: I, II, III, IV, and VI.

    There are two ways to incorporate the BoR via 14th. Framer wanted privilege or immunities (PorI) as the proper way to do it. It gives the most freedom to the citizens. However the slaughter case (one of the worst ruling ever) put a stop to it right away. Due Process while not as far reaching as PorI it still does a good job at preventing State oppression.

    What does the McDonald case do for gun rights?

    1. All gun control organization is now designated as HATE GROUP. hahahahahah. So if they try to prevent you from excising your right to own a gun, you can put them in jail.
    2. All gun control laws in every states can not be contested in court.
    3. New gun control laws will be harder to almost impossible to enact
    4. It will take a lot of time and money to get rid of all the gun control laws in the country. So be patient.

    Major gun control laws that I think will be shot down in courts.
    1. Registration (discriminatory).
    2. NFA tax stamp (discriminatory).
    3. 1986 machine gun ban (Heller ruling).
    4. NFA (discriminatory).
    5. State Assault Weapon Ban (Heller ruling).

    Why did McDonald case gone back to the lower courts? It gone back to the lower courts for a ruling. The lower courts dismissed the case because the 2nd Amendment at that time did not applied to the State. Now it does the lower courts can rule on it.

    The McDonald case also open the door for Privilege or Immunities for a latter court date. This I might add is a huge boom for libertarians and scholars. They wait a long time for the door to open back up.

  • Slim934

    I’m not holding my breath, although in the short term it is certainly a good thing for residents of chicago.

    From: http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/06/28/is-the-mcdonald-gun-decision-good-for-liberty/

    “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.”

    This seems to me the proper way to look at this decision.

  • chris

    Apparently I’ve been living under a rock, I’m not sure what the McDonald thing is. I read the links and didn’t understand the PDF, the Snowflakes in Hell wasn’t much help either. could someone explain to me what it is?

  • jdun1911

    2. All gun control laws in every states can not be contested in court.

    What I meant was

    2. All gun control laws in every states can be contested in court.

    I wrote this while working.

  • http://www.predatorwild.com Heath

    Lance,

    With out a doubt the state of CA will take the same stance on this decision as Helmke in that they are able to impose “common sense” restriction on firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals. In other words, all of the restrictions, in their opinion, comply with the opinion in the McDonald case.

  • Rusgunnut1

    Chris, I am in the same situation. Perhaps Mcdonalds had a starbuck’s like fiasco and didn’t allow CCWers.

  • Vak

    Greetings from the other side of the pond !

    Does any of you think this ruling means that on a more or less short term, your import restrictions will be lifted ? Seriously, you guys deserve to be able to buy all these nices Sigs, H&K clones and AK.

  • kcoz

    Don’t get too excited people. All this means is they can’t alright ban firearms. I think most gun control groups have given up on that idea anyway. What constitutes “common sense” regulations is still up for debate. That will be the next battleground in this war. Still hats off to the NRA and everyone else that made this happen.

  • jdun1911

    No the ruling will not have any impact on import restrictions. Import is under the commerce clause and not the 2nd amendment.

  • Cymond

    Chris & rusgunnut,

    First, google is your friend.

    In short, a guy named Otis McDonald sued Chicago for practically banning handguns. Ok, not banning, but the process is so long and complicated that it is basically impossible unless you have very excellent political connections. You have to have a gun to register it, and you have to register it to have it. A paradox? Yes, one designed to make gun registration effectively impossible. Additionally, I think Chicago required a long, expensive annual re-registration. If a gun registration expires then it can never be registered again.

    Mr McDonald lives in a bad neighborhood and has been threatened (complete w/ home invasion) several times. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court because of the Constitutional issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and cities. The case is similar to last year’s Hellver vs. DC except that Heller only applied to the federal gov’t (DC is a federal enclave).

    I highly doubt this will strike down all gun control. Sure, “shall not be infringed” seems clear-cut to us, but others support ‘common sense’ gun control such as an easy registration, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc. Yeah, I’d like to see the ’86 ban repealed (or especially the NFA) but don’t expect it to happen. I predict the biggest gains will be to repeal the restrictions that completely ban guns and might also help with right-to-carry laws.

  • Counsel

    Soul:

    The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights that give the citizen certain recognized rights that the government can not take away. Here is my take on why it wasn’t a surprise victory-http://wordpress.pocosin.com/?p=580

    What does cOncern me are the 4 Justices that seem to attempt a rationalization of why such a right is dangerous based on their FEAR of gun violence… Their discussion is not rational (i.e., it lacks any critical thinking).

  • Counsel

    Actually, what has been argued in these cases (to date) is restrictions on ownership… What may come next are the arguments on carrying arms based on the right to bear. As stated in the 2nd Amendment ;)