I had meant to get this post out yesterday, but I had to take the time to read the entire opinion... all 214 pages of it... and think about it for a bit.
This judgment is notable, both for what it does, and for what it does not do; and I want to go into that in some depth... and I want to go into some of the background and issues surrounding the decision that aren't necessarily about the right to keep and bear arms
However, that is going to get long.... and if you aren't interested in constitutional law and the nature and exercise of the rights and powers of the states, it's going to be boring. There's only so much you can do to make enumeration and separation of powers issues over more than two hundred years, all that interesting.
Note: Also, for those of you who DO closely follow con law, this is going to be a gross simplification in some ways. I don't have time to write a book here, and a book is what it would take to cover this comprehensively (actually several... there are a few out there already, and Heller and its progeny are sure to generate more).
At any rate, I'm going to break it out into another posts, and I'll update this post with a link when I finish the other one.
... I should warn you, I'm already 5,000 words in, and I'm probably less than half done...
McDonald vs. Chicago is the first major gun rights case brought before the supreme court under the clarified Heller doctrine, to wit:
The right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes is an individual right, possessed by all citizens and lawful residents of this country (provided this right has not been statutorily stripped from them, with due process of law); and the core of that right, is the fundamental right to defense of self, and others.
Actually, McDonald is a bit more than just "first"... In fact, the case was prepared in advance, and filed immediately on the handing down of the Heller ruling; by the lead counsel on the Heller case, Alan Gura.
The issue at hand in Heller was to affirm and clarify the basic right; something which those on the left in general, and in the gun control lobby in particular, had been trying to deny for something like the last 40 years.
Note: The modern gun control movement as currently constituted really began in the late 60s; roughly coinciding with accelerating decay of civil order and rise in civil unrest, the rise of the drug and counterculture, and dramatically rising crime rates.
More than anything else, it was the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King that kick-started the gun control movement as it exists today.
The gun control movement in the U.S. as a whole has its roots in racial discrimination against immigrants in the pre-civil war northern cites, and blacks in the post civil war south.
Up until the late 1950s, the left as a whole actually advocated gun ownership, as a bulwark against the state... a position generally ascribed these days to the "far right"; but as the left post 1932 increasingly BECAME the state, their position on civilian non-police gun ownership changed.
The issue at hand in McDonald is substantially identical to Heller, with a crucial difference we'll discuss in a moment; that of incorporation of the second amendment against state and local governments, as other rights enumerated in the bill of rights have been.
In Heller, the substance and nature of the right were affirmed. However, though the assertion of the right is very clear; it's application is potentially limited.
Because the Heller case pertained to a federal enclave (Washington D.C. is not a part of any state. It is a federal enclave. Precedent in DC cases applies federally, but not necessarily to issues in the several states), the ruling only explicitly applied to the federal government.
In principle the right could be asserted against the states, or it could not be... depending on judicial interpretation. Either way a judge decided, it would almost be certain to be appealed... as indeed it was (in at least four cases so far, all of which were delayed pending the McDonald ruling).
Also, Heller left various questions open to interpretation, such as the standard of review for laws pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms, and whether interest balancing tests could be made.. or for that matter just what types of laws would be acceptable short of outright bans on firearms in the home (which were explicitly forbidden).
In Mondays decision on McDonald, it was affirmed (quite strongly), that the rights protected by the second amendment are equal in stature to the rights protected by the first amendment, and all the others.
In both the majority opinion, and the concurrences, the court made it explicit that the protections afforded by the second amendment applied against the state. Further, they made it clear that a strict standard of review was to be applied to any law regarding the right to keep and bear arms (though they do not by any means disallow all regulation. In both Heller and McDonald, it is acknowledged that some regulation of any right can be acceptable, but must be strictly scrutinized).
There is still one set of questions to be resolved, what exact restrictions against keeping and bearing arms will be acceptable under this standard of review. Just as there are many limitations against speech permitted by current jurisprudence, including many which probably should not be allowed under the constitution (such as most of what is called "campaign finance reform"); there will likely still be substantial restrictions allowed by the court. In any case, it will be years... likely decades... before the whole issue is settled law, and in the mean time, there will be a lot of contradiction and chaos.
The fight is certainly not over... in fact it's really just getting started.
This is where we get into the theoretical discussion about the constitution, so I think I'm going to end here and pick it up in the next, much longer, post.
