"Highly recommended.."
Suburban Journals of Chicago Inc
When Will an Oak Park Pistol Range Open?
Wm. B. Sullivan Realty & Co.
Estate Planning and General Law
RAVINIA
"A Great time in a
Wonderful Place" SJC
July 28, 2010
© Suburban Journals of Chicago Inc. photo
The Supreme Court of the United States has Extended the Second Amendment to all States and Cities in America, removing by law bands on handgun ownership in Oak Park, Chicago and around the nation.
It is expected that both Oak Park and Chicago will add some restrictions to handgun ownership, but bans are now unconstitutional.
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO
Syllabus
Petitioners base their case on two submissions. Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privi-leges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thatthe Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contend thatthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right. Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respon-dents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies tothe States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civi-lized’ ” legal system. If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, municipal respondents assert, that right is not protected by due process. And since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of hand-guns, they maintain that due process does (a)
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is oneof the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
© Suburban Journals of Chicago Inc. photo
The Supreme Court of the United States has Extended the Second Amendment to all States and Cities in America, removing by law bands on handgun ownership in Oak Park, Chicago and around the nation.
It is expected that both Oak Park and Chicago will add some restrictions to handgun ownership, but bans are now unconstitutional.
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO
Syllabus
Petitioners base their case on two submissions. Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privi-leges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thatthe Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contend thatthe Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right. Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respon-dents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies tothe States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civi-lized’ ” legal system. If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, municipal respondents assert, that right is not protected by due process. And since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of hand-guns, they maintain that due process does (a)
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is oneof the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08–1521
OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2010]
JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A,
and III–B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY,
and JUSTICE THOMAS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV,
and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY
join.No. 08–1521
OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2010]
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously heldthat most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
I Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson (Chicago petitioners) are Chicago residents who would like to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense but are prohibited from doing so by Chicago’s firearms laws. A City ordinance provides that “[n]o person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm.”Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) (2009). The Code then prohibits registration of most handguns, thus effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens who reside in the City. §8–20–050(c).Like Chicago, Oak Park makes it “unlawful for any personto possess . . . any firearm,” a term that includes “pistols, revolvers, guns and small arms . . . commonly known as handguns.” Oak Park, Ill., Municipal Code §§27–2–1 (2007), 27–1–1 (2009).Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents“from the loss of property and injury or death from fire-arms.” See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of theCity Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago peti-tioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago PoliceDepartment statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted1 and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of otherviolent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.2
——————
1See Brief for Heartland Institute as Amicus Curiae 6–7 (noting thathandgun murder rate was 9.65 in 1983 and 13.88 in 2008). 2Brief for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 8–9 (“In 2002 and again in 2008, Chicago had more murders than anyother city in the U. S., including the much larger Los Angeles and New York
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously heldthat most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
I Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson (Chicago petitioners) are Chicago residents who would like to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense but are prohibited from doing so by Chicago’s firearms laws. A City ordinance provides that “[n]o person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm.”Chicago, Ill., Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) (2009). The Code then prohibits registration of most handguns, thus effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens who reside in the City. §8–20–050(c).Like Chicago, Oak Park makes it “unlawful for any personto possess . . . any firearm,” a term that includes “pistols, revolvers, guns and small arms . . . commonly known as handguns.” Oak Park, Ill., Municipal Code §§27–2–1 (2007), 27–1–1 (2009).Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents“from the loss of property and injury or death from fire-arms.” See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of theCity Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago peti-tioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago PoliceDepartment statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted1 and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of otherviolent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.2
——————
1See Brief for Heartland Institute as Amicus Curiae 6–7 (noting thathandgun murder rate was 9.65 in 1983 and 13.88 in 2008). 2Brief for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 8–9 (“In 2002 and again in 2008, Chicago had more murders than anyother city in the U. S., including the much larger Los Angeles and New York
© Suburban Journals of Chicago Inc.
published by Suburban Journals of Chicago Inc.