Korean Job Discussion Forums

[The Happy Warrior]

Finally, it seems the Supreme Court has gotten around to incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the States.

McDonald v. Chicago

The Federal Bill of Rights were always distinct from State Constitutional protections until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Whereas the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause restrained Federal action, the 14th Amendment protects American citizens from State deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (namely, adequate notice, an impartial hearing, and a neutral judge). As a result, Supreme Court cases slowly incorporated the many rights from the Bill of Rights one by one to the states [In addition to the right to keep and bear arms (and the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict, see n. 14, infra), the only rights not fully incorporated are (1) the Third Amendment�s protection against quartering of soldiers; (2) the Fifth Amendment�s grand jury indictment requirement; (3) the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases; and (4) the Eighth Amendment�s prohibition on excessive fines]. The 2nd Amendment only prevented the Federal government, and the city of D.C. in Heller, from seriously restricting the ownership of firearms (although wiki the Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act). Every State has its own firearm policy. And each state will continue to have its own firearm policy. But today, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the fundamental right for citizens to bear arms, at least within their own homes.

But what makes a Constitutionally enumerated right incorporated? The City of Chicago emphasized one criterion in particular: "when inquiring into whether some particular procedural safeguard was required of a State, if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection.� Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, n. 14 (1968). Chicago argued many free countries, such as say, South Korea, ban handguns entirely. Thus, it could not be considered a fundamental right. Unfortunately for Chicago, the very same case evaluated that standard by "whether a particular Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice." Justice Alito, writing, also looked to whether the right to bear arms was �deeply rooted in this Nation�s history and tradition,� Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997).

Apparently, it is. Alito's analysis is long. He begins by quoting Heller, the 2008 D.C. case, stating that self-defense is the core of the 2nd Amendment right. Then he recounts statements and positions from the American revolution, but especially Southern States' efforts to disarm black Union veterans after the Civil War. And then contrasts that latter phenomenon effectively with Southern State Constitutions guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Then he shoots down Chicago's arguments, one by one.

So the right to self-defense, particularly to own and keep a firearm within the home, is now a fundamental right, protected by the 2nd Amendment, and incorporated against State infringement. In the meantime, there will be a great many challenges to existing State regulations to see how far this right extends. For more on what this decision will mean, SCOTUS.blog has an informative post.

[chellovek]

God has spoken.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/06/lightning-strikes-three-chicago-skyscrapers-at-the-same-time/

[kiknkorea]

I wholly agree with the decision, but before we get too thrilled with it, let's remember we're talking about Chicago, where common sense rarely rules the day.

Some examples-