|
|
|
|
|
|
by hga
5831 days ago
|
|
|
NO "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than fight (Chicago offered to pay the legal costs of the one remaining suburb)). As it is, some lower courts have already been writing decisions assuming Heller would be incorporated and there are two cases in California have been on hold while waiting for this decision. WRT Breyer's dissent WRT "democratic decision-making", Alito slammed him pretty hard: "First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. [...] Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights." |
|
|
That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not covered.
I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of another (although IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS expert). Does this signal anything about the future of the court, or about the Chief Justice's leadership?