". . .have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather eXpose them" -Eph 5:11
Otis McDonald in front of court house
29 June, 2010
Cyril Grossé | TDX
In the wake of the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia decision which acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, yesterday’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago reaffirmed and extended this right to apply to the states and local governments. Before the McDonald Case, the Heller decision had only applied to federal enclaves and possessions.
Chicago has been plagued with a steady rising gun-related crime rate despite having one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country. Otis McDonald challenged this ban, however, citing it violated his constitutional right to defend his home against the violent criminals who have been thriving among the city’s law-abiding, disarmed residents.
In a 5-4 decision, the supremes agreed with McDonald that an absolute ban was too restrictive and infringed on his constitutional rights. However, they stopped short of outlining what degree of restriction would be permissible. In fact, Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion stated, “. . .today’s decision invites an avalanche of litigation that could mire the federal courts in fine-grained determinations about which state and local regulations comport with the Heller right—the precise contours of which arefar from pellucid—under a standard of review we have not even established.”
Mayor Daley issued a statement today in response to the ruling in which he expressed his disappointment in the ruling and also added he was unhappy with some of the language used in the decision. He accused the Supreme Court of failing to recognize the hard work and loss of life of Chicagoans in the fight against gun violence, among other things. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City added his voice to the voice of Mayors whose cities enforce strict gun bans saying, “both make clear that we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That’s what New York City has always done.”
As Justice Stevens predicted, this will likely usher in a flurry of litigation across the nation as we attempt to elucidate the breadth and width of this contemporary interpretation of the 2nd and 14th amendments. Other areas expected to be affected most by this latest decision will be New York City and California State.
