McDonald v. Chicago Victory: Supreme Court Declares that the 2nd Amendment Applies to State/Local Government!

Published by the Author on June 28, 2010 at 9:27 am > Gun Related News > McDonald v. Chicago Victory: Supreme Court Declares that the 2nd Amendment Applies to State/Local Government!

The Supreme Court has published its opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, and it is a victory for gun rights.  The court has incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment, meaning that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms now applies against state and local government, rather than just the Federal Government:

A more in-depth discussion of this case will follow when I have the time later on, but for now here is a quote that sums up this major victory for gun rights.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend ment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Unarmed Self Defense and Disaster Preparedness e-books:

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , ,

  • Cory

    Eat you heart out, Mr. "hizzoner-da-ma'er" Daley!

  • christian

    as far as i know it was only the right to have guns in their homes that they supported, not concealed carry.

    • w d meyers

      you are correct. It throws it back to the 7th circuit of appeals. they ruled the last time for King Daley. I live in Southern Illinois and I am tired of sending my taxes to King Daley. I have no Representation in Ill. politics. The court has been told to correct itself. The gun issue is not the only issue in Illinois. If the court does not correct itself, we find ourselves before the Supreme Court again. The court sidestepped the issue of "right to carry".

      • JD

        Mr Meyers we have the opportunity of our life time to get a concealed carry bill passed in the spring session. First we have to elect pro gun candidates this fall. Ask the candidates where they stand then support them regardliss of party if they support our right to carry a firearm on your person. This is the ONLY way it is going to happen and PAT QUINN blatantly promised to veto every CCW bill crossing his desk. Ask him; he is not bashful about his anti carry feelings. The opponent for governor Quinns seat is a Republician BILL BRADY that is not a member of the Chicago machine and is a

        heavily pro gun supporter that vows to sign a concealed carry bill. Demos & Repubs both must

        support and vote BILL BRADY into the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. There is no

        alternative to this. Both candidates expressed

        plainly where they stand. Quinn believes the Chicago Democrats will support him. Chicago citizens wanting to carry a gun for protection

        have expressed at gun meetings that they will be voting for BILL BRADY & the right to carry a firearm. Voters are primed to make many changes at the polls for several reasons and with the McDonald ruling helping the pro gun situation it appears that BILL BRADY is the favorite. It is a fact that a vote for BILL BRADY is a vote for concealed carry and the only way it is likely going to happen people.

        We can continue on like it is or make the change and I for one see several reasons to change governors. What say you all out there?

    • James

      Although not specifically stated that conceal carry is supported in today's decision, 2A is now interpreted primarily for self-defense and an individual right that is applicable to all States.

      From the majority opinion:

      "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."

      Although the case is home defense related, the majority opinion does not limit self-defense to only inside your home. The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, not home defense or self-defense in your home.

      It's a great day for law abiding citizens.

  • JR

    Congratulations all!

    Yes, right to have a gun at home will be a first step. With this ruling's backing, it can be argued that your constitutional rights do not cease when you leave home. My guess is that legally possessing a gun in your car will be next and hopefully right to carry will follow.

    Now watch gun violence in Chicago start to drop as a result of this ruling. That trend will only accelerate once right to carry is extended.