It may now, and must now be said that after 234 years, our Supreme Court has finally, at long last, made it unequivocal and explicit that our right to keep and bear arms for personal defense is a fundamental, unalienable right protected by the 2nd Amendment and applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago is an enormous victory for liberty and security, although a slightly qualified one. Justice Alito, writing for the Court, says:
“In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”
This is an unparalleled victory for gun rights! Beyond the immediate effect, because the RKBA is now firmly a fundamental right, ALL REGULATIONS that infringe upon that right are subject to the “strict scrutiny” standard of review, rather than a lesser “rational basis” review. What this means in the practical sense is that many thousands of gun laws may now be challenged to see if they meet this test:
Can the government demonstrate that it has a compelling need to impose the regulation?
Is the regulation narrowly tailored to achieve only the legitimate governmental objective?
Does the regulation represent the least possible intrusion on the fundamental right implicated?
Many gun laws will meet this standard, including keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and insane persons, but many more will not meet this high bar, and that will change the complexion of gun ownership completely in many states, particularly in the East and Midwest, and of course California.
But, a caveat: The Court explicitly recognized that reasonable restrictions are both possible, and in a couple of cases, such as keeping guns out of schools, implicitly desirable. Furthermore, according to the hysterical pronouncements of Mayors Daley and Bloomberg, we can expect repeated attempts to burden gun ownership such as those put in place by the District of Columbia after the Heller decision. Daley is talking about all manner of obstructive bureaucracy and huge insurance policies, among other plots to suborn the will of the People and the dictates of the Court.
But again, the good news is that whatever he tries can now be challenged under federal civil rights laws, and most importantly, actions by state agents that interfere with the RKBA are now CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS that may be prosecuted under 42 USC 1983. This is an enormous boost to gun owners against overzealous cops and legislators.
Hooray for the Constitution! Today is a day to be remembered in our history books!
FWIW here’s my take on the subject:
The 14th Amendment “incorporation doctrine” is LEGAL QUACKERY perpetrated by the corrupt judges and executive officers of the government!
The original language of the Constitution clearly indicates the framers intent that restrictions on infringing the people’s rights applied against all levels of governments!
Art IV, states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” AND, “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”.
Art VI states, “This Constitution…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.”, and further states, “…Senators and Representatives…and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the U.S. and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;…”
I’m no lawyer but I am a College Graduate and that language is quite plain and clear to me. It’s just another example of government’s corruption and violations of their authority.
The framers of the US Constitution absolutely intended the Judges – whether Federal, State or Municipal Magistrates – to uphold the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land.” That one statement shoots holes all in the so-called “Incorporation Doctrine.”
Do the judges really believe the framers were referring to the District of Columbia as “the Land”? Give me a break!
What this means is that if an American citizen is brought before ANY Judge/Magistrate charged with violating a law which “any reasonable person would believe violated any provision of the US Constitution”, the judge is constitutionally obligated to dismiss the charges and free the defendant immediately. An example might be an American charged with “unlawfully possessing a firearm.”
The framers did NOT intend that Americans would be harassed for exercising their rights by having to hire expensive, and mostly incompetent, lawyers to defend them against unconstitutional laws for years and years only to get to the SCOTUS and have them deny hearing the matter. Local judges were intended to be the “line of defense” between an overreaching government and its victims – “the people”.
The corrupt judiciary and “lawmakers” are tyrants and all deserve a tyrant’s due.