ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Law Blog - WSJ.com

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: Law Blog - WSJ.com

Breaking News: Supremes Strike Down D.C. Handgun Ban

By Dan Slater

ADVERTISEMENTS

scotusTwo of the biggest Supreme Court cases of the term, whose rulings were reserved for the last day of the term, both split along ideological lines. The Court has ruled, in a 5-4 (right-left) vote, to invalidate the so-called Millionaire’s Amendment to McCain-Feingold that was at issue in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. (Here’s the opinion, via Scotus blog, whose amazing live blog feature has enabled the LB to expedite this week’s Scotus news.)

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the hotly-anticipated case over the D.C. gun ban, a 5-4 majority affirmed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote dissents. (Here’s the opinion.)

Quoting the syllabus: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The ruling in Heller — stemming from a suit brought by several D.C. citizens who contended that the ban on firearms inside one’s home violated the Constitution — marks the first time in 70 years that the Court has weighed in on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

In Davis, the purported purpose of the millionaire’s amendment was to level the playing field between self-financed (read: wealthy) candidates and other candidates by requiring self-financed candidates to disclose more information and permitting their opponents to raise more money. At oral argument, Justice Ginsburg, who signed onto Justice Stevens’s dissent, said its purpose was to combat “the perception that the seats in our Congress are there to be bought by the wealthiest bidder.” Justice Scalia disliked that rationale: “Who is more incorruptible than the millionaire, right?” he asked during the arguments. .

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on June 26, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 10/31/26 12:48:06)