In a 5-4 decision issued today by Justice Samuel Alito in McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled the strengthening of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms with respect to a state law out of Illinois. For the AP, Mark Sherman writes:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held today that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”
The Opinion effectively strikes down Chicago’s hand gun ban, however the case was remanded back to the Illinois’ federal court for further proceedings. The five Justices concurring in the Opinion are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas in addition to Alito. The dissenting Justices were John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. You can read their bios here.
If you have some time on your hands, you can read the Court’s entire 214 page opinion here. The Court’s opinion is actually 51 pages, with the rest dedicated to a concurring opinion by Scalia, Thomas’ opinion concurring in part, and dissenting opinions by Stevens and Breyer.
What do you think? Should states be able to ban handgun possession by private citizens, or does the Second Amendment guarantee our right to keep guns?