McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010), is an important decision of the United States Supreme Court found that the right of individuals to "keep and bear the arm" is protected by the Second Amendment incorporated by the Fourth Amendment Process Clause the states. The decision clears the remaining uncertainty behind the District of Columbia v. Heller of the state-of-war arms coverage.
Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld the Chicago legislation prohibiting possession of pistols and other weapon regulations affecting rifles and rifles, citing United States v. Cruikshank , Presser v. Illinois , and Miller v. Texas . The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, a lawyer who has successfully disputed Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsor litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retired Otis McDonald.
The oral argument took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the decision of the Seventh Circuit, stating that the Second Amendment was established under the Fourteenth Amendment thereby protecting those rights from infringement by the local government. Then return the case to the Seventh Circuit to resolve the conflict between certain Chicago gun barriers and the Second Amendment.
Video McDonald v. City of Chicago
​​Latar belakang case
In the case of 2010 McDonald v. Chicago City, Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old retirement care engineer (in 2010), had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a home there in 1971. McDonald denounced the environmental degradation, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealer. The grass is regularly littered with rubbish and his house and garage have been split into fivefold, with the most recent robbery done by a man identified by McDonald from his own neighborhood. An experienced hunter, McDonald officially owns a rifle, but believes that they are too heavy in terms of robbery, and wants to buy a gun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, but refused all pistol registrations after 1982 when the gun ban across town was passed, he could not have a gun legally. As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago citizens in filing a lawsuit that became McDonald v. Chicago . Maps McDonald v. City of Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago compared to NRA v. Chicago
Although consolidated in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the case differs in scope in terms of specific opposing regulations and legal arguments to apply the Second Amendment to state and local governments. The Second Amendment Foundation brought the McDonald's case to the Supreme Court with Alan Gura's chief lawyer. The cases were appealed separately to the US Supreme Court.
- McDonald's Petition for Certiorari
- Chicago Brief in Opposition to Approve the Petition
Rules are challenging
McDonald challenges four broad aspects of Chicago's weapons registration law, which the plaintiff claims:
- Prohibit the registration of the gun, thus affecting the large gun ban
- Ask for weapons to be registered before the Chicago acquisition
- The mandate that weapons will be re-registered annually, with other payment fees
- Make any rifle permanently unenrolable if the registration is lost
Legal basis for incorporation
All post-Heri cases, including McDonald , NRA v. Chicago , Nordyke and Maloney , contends that the Second Amendment, in addition to applying to federal jurisdiction, should also apply to state and local governments, called selective merging. Selective merging involves convincing courts that rights are "fundamental" with "implied in the concept of freedom of command" or "rooted in the history and traditions of our nation" as defined recently in the case of the Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 US 145 (1968).
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment to be incorporated through a selective merging process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases asking the court to cancel the Cutting House Case , 83 US 36 (1873). Animal Slaughterhouse stipulates that the Clause of Privilege or Authority of Article 14 is not applicable to the Human Rights Act for state action (and by extension, local government). If it has been canceled, the Selective Merger process may become unnecessary, since all Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, may be applied to the state.
In an effort to cancel Slaughter-House, the case garnered the attention and support of conservative and liberal law scholars interested in applying its potential in areas outside the law of firearms. Their interest is that if the Cut House has been canceled, it will be possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to jury in civil cases, the right to grand jury in crime cases, and other parts. of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court decisions and existing federal precedents, not universally guaranteed in action by states, will be applied against states automatically.
In his opinion, Justice Thomas criticized the Slaughter-House's decision and Cruikshank, proposing that "the right to store and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship applicable to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or the Immune Clause. "
Amis curiae
Thirty-three amici curiae ("friends of the court") brief for this case was submitted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
One of these reports was filed by US Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) and Jon Tester (D, MT) and US representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asked the Supreme Court to find in favor of the the applicant and ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the state. A brief report was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than the amicus curiae summary in history. In addition, thirty-two states under the auspices of Texas (and California independently) also filed amici curiae .
Decision
Second Middle Amendment Findings
In People v. Aguilar (2013), Illinois Supreme Court concluded the findings of the Second Amendment center at McDonald :
Two years later, at McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court declares that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to states through the supposed process clause of the fourteenth amendment. By holding firmly, the Court reaffirms that "the Second Amendment protects the right to defend and shoulder the weapon for the purpose of self-defense" ( id ., ___, 130 S. Ct. At 3026); that "individual self-defense is the" major component of the true Second Amendment "( id ) at ___, 130 S. Ct in 3036 (citing Heller, 554 US in 599)), and that "elf-defense is a fundamental right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" ( id , at ___, 130 S. Ct at 3036).
Majority
Writing for the majority, Judge Alito stated that the Fourth Amendment Process Clause incorporates a Second Amendment Right recognized in Heller . Writing the same opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion about the merging problem for a different reason: Privileges or Immunity of the Fourteenth Amendment Clause. The majority decision also reaffirms that certain firearm restrictions mentioned in the District of Columbia v. Heller is assumed to be allowed and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those that "prohibit... possess firearms by criminals or mental illness" and "the law prohibits the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws that impose terms and qualifications on the sale commercial weapons. ".
Dissents
Judge Stevens wrote a different, long opinion. Among his disagreements with the majority is the assertion that establishment is not at issue in this case. Quoting Cruikshank, Stevens writes, "The question called incorrectness is correct and, in my view, was resolved correctly by the end of the nineteenth century." In addition, he opposed merging, taking issue with the majority opinion methodology.
Justice Breyer writes, "In short, Framers did not write the Second Amendment to protect the privacy of armed self-defense, there has been, and there is no consensus that rights are, or 'fundamental'.
Reception
The initial reaction of the Court's ruling was favorable both from the National Rifle Association and Brady's Campaign to Prevent Pistol Violence. Both issued a statement to the public that they felt they were justified by the court. However, the court did not include "standard clarification for review" as requested by the Brady group in their amicus brief. In a discussion on Wayne LaPierre's ruling day from the NRA and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the Court's decision to rule out a ban on weapons to be used for "legitimate purposes" such as self-protection at home.. But for general questions about weapons laws not covered by McDonald's, a great deal of lawsuits are required to determine whether existing state weapons laws may also be unconstitutional. McDonald, supra., States that "The 2nd Amendment is 'entirely applicable' to all countries," but Wayne LaPierre expressed caution that the NRA has "much work ahead" trying to overturn other weapon control rules not covered by < i> McDonald . Helmke predicted that in that case the NRA "will lose most of the lawsuits".
Related case
A day after
Second Postend Amendment Cases Post- Heller The other two notable changes:
- Nordyke v. King , 563 F.3d 439 (9. Cir. 2009) Holds that the 2nd Amendment applies to the state of the Ninth Circuit, even though the verdict is cleared for reconsideration en banc , and the prohibition of firearms Alameda County, California on the county property remains constitutional until canceled by McDonald v. Chicago .
- Maloney v. Rice (aka Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) Decides that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states in the Second Circuit. The case involves a state ban on the Nunchaku stick (martial arts weapon). In a memorandum memo dated June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit decision at Maloney and submitted for further consideration with the McDonald's stating that the Second Amendment is applies to states.
- State of Washington v. Sieyes The Supreme Court of Washington declares that the 2nd Amendment is included and applies to the State of Washington, through the Fourth Amendment Process Clause. Replaced by, but consistent with, McDonald .
- Commonwealth v. Runyan , 456 Mass. 230 (2010) The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declares that Heller does not apply to the state legislature of Massachusetts and that its key weapons ordered by Massachusetts law differ from those set out in Heller . Partially reversed by McDonald ; The decision made at Heller is true for the State of Massachusetts (as with all States), but the key requirement of rifles under MA law may be quite different from the DC law to be found constitutional.
- In Ezell v. Chicago , decided on July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit overturned the district court decision that the post- McDonald's action adopted by Chicago City was constitutional. Chicago law requires firefight training within range of fire to obtain weapons permits, but also prohibits firing range in Chicago City. The City has argued that applicants can get their training in the range of rifles in the suburbs. Opinion notes that Chicago can not violate the rights of the Second Amendment on the grounds that they may be implemented elsewhere, moreover it may violate the right to free speech on the grounds that citizens may speak elsewhere.
- In Moore v. Madigan , the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in December 2012 requiring the Illinois Legislature to amend the existing State law to adopt a legislation that is concealed to allow the Illinois inhabitants the right to shoulder arms outside the home. In February 2013, the entire Court of Appeal decided to let the three-judge panel decision decide in December 2012. Following the last 30 days extension, Illinois was required by the court to draft a legally concealed law on July 9, 2013. In the end, the legislature ruled out the governor's veto and approve of Illinois being hidden to start January 2014, at the latest.
See also
- law firearms cases in the United States
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 561
- 2nd Amendment Day
References
External links
- Official statement from the US Supreme Court
- The SCOTUS Transcript of the Oral Argument at McDonald v. Chicago
- Case history by Chicago magazine
- Arms Keepers, an organization that has filed a brief petition to support McDonald's in order for the Supreme Court to hear the case
- ChicagoGunCase.com case history by a group that supports gun rights
- Court filing and court opinion for McDonald v. Chicago includes original complaints and subsequent submissions
- NRA Complaint against Chicago
- NRA Complaint against Evanston
- NRA Complaint against Morton Grove
- NRA Complaints Against Oak Park
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments