Legal Commentary

McDonald v. Chicago: The Second Amendment Applies to the States

By Jeralyn

BTD has noted the dissent of Justice Stevens in today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago (opinion here) which holds, finally, that the Second Amendment is applicable to the States.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito. (This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with him.)

It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. [More...]

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, says he would have relied not on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, but on the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. That clause holds:

“[N]o State . . . shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

He was the only Justice to take that view. The decision does not open the floodgates. As the New York Times reports:

The majority said only that the right to keep handguns for self-protection at home is constitutionally protected. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, reiterated the caveats in the Heller decision, saying the court did not mean to cast doubt on laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons or the mentally ill, those forbidding carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings or those regulating the commercial sale of firearms.

I agree with the decision as I have long been a supporter of Second Amendment rights. We need to vigilantly preserve all our Constitutional rights, and with the Third Amendment being obsolete, the Second Amendment is only one away from the Fourth.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 28, 2010 (boomark / email).