Jump to content

McDonald v. City of Chicago: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 84: Line 84:
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf SCOTUS Transcript of Oral Arguments in McDonald v. Chicago]
*[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf SCOTUS Transcript of Oral Arguments in McDonald v. Chicago]
*[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2010/In-Their-Sights-Lawsuit-challenging-Chicagos-1982-handgun-ban-to-be-heard-by-Supreme-Court/], case history by ''Chicago'' magazine
*[http://www.ArmsKeepers.org Arms Keepers], an organization that has filed a brief supporting McDonald's request that the Supreme Court hear the case
*[http://www.ArmsKeepers.org Arms Keepers], an organization that has filed a brief supporting McDonald's request that the Supreme Court hear the case
*[http://www.ChicagoGunCase.com/ ChicagoGunCase.com] case history by a group supporting gun rights
*[http://www.ChicagoGunCase.com/ ChicagoGunCase.com] case history by a group supporting gun rights

Revision as of 15:02, 28 June 2010

McDonald v. Chicago
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2010
Decided June 28, 2010
Full case nameOtis McDonald, et al., Petitioners v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.
Docket no.08-1521
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 617 F. Supp. 2d 752 (ND Ill. 2008), affirmed, 567 F. 3d 856 (CA7), cert. granted, 557 U. S. ___ (2009)
Holding
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy (all); Thomas (all except parts II-C, IV and V)
ConcurrenceScalia
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentStevens
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II, XIV

McDonald v. Chicago was a landmark case lawsuit (similar to the subsequently filed NRA v. Chicago) originally filed before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,[1] and for which a petition for certiorari was granted on Sept. 30, 2009, by the Supreme Court of the United States.[2] The petitioners seek to overturn a handgun ban, and other aspects of gun registration regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, in Chicago, Illinois as unconstitutional. This was the first such lawsuit since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected an individual right to "keep and bear arms." The case was filed by Alan Gura, who successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The case is sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald[4].

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of Chicago on December 18, 2008.[5] The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with a similar case, NRA v. Chicago. Oral argument was May 26, 2009, and the court issued its opinion on June 2, 2009, affirming the trial court's decision that the Chicago and Oak Park gun regulations pass constitutional muster.[6][7]

The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs. Certiorari for McDonald was granted on September 30, 2009.[8] The NRA has separately filed on behalf of their plaintiffs, and on January 25, 2010 the Supreme Court granted the NRA's motion for divided argument.[9] Oral argument took place on March 2, 2010.[10][11] On June 28, 2010, the High Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, striking down Chicago's gun restrictions.[12]

McDonald v. Chicago as compared to NRA v. Chicago

Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court.[13]

Regulations challenged

The NRA case is focused on the fact that Chicago's gun registration laws do not allow the registration of handguns. It should be noted that in the District of Columbia v. Heller[14], "The Court also recognized a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" and weapons that were considered dangerous and unusual..."[15]

McDonald challenges four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:[16]

  • Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
  • Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
  • Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
  • Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

All of the post-Heller cases, including McDonald, NRA v. Chicago, Nordyke and Maloney, have argued that the Second Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the Supreme Court case Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).

In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it is asking the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied against the states.[17]

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case has garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest is that if Slaughter-House is overturned, it is possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would be applied against the states automatically.[18][19][20]

Amicus curiae briefs

Thirty-three amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs for this case have been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.[21]

One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and John Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.[22] The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.[23]

The day after McDonald was filed the National Rifle Association filed five similar lawsuits challenging local gun bans:

Other notable post-Heller Second Amendment court cases:

  • Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 493 (9th. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states in the Ninth Circuit, though the ruling has since been vacated for en banc reconsideration, and the Alameda County, California prohibition of firearms on county property remains constitutional pending the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago.
  • Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit. The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon).
  • State of Washington v. Sieyes The Washington Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated and applies to Washington State, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • The Commonwealth V. Runyan, 456 Mass. 230 (2010) The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Heller did not apply to the Massachusetts state legislature and that the gun locks ordered under Massachusetts law are different than those regulated in Heller.

See also

References

  1. ^ Docket information about McDonald v. Chicago from U.S. Supreme Court
  2. ^ Supreme Court returns to firearms fray
  3. ^ "ChicagoGunCase.com » SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago's Handgun Ban". www.chicagoguncase.com. Retrieved 2009-07-06.
  4. ^ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1400961.html
  5. ^ "Chicago Handgun Ban Upheld - Chicagoist". Retrieved 2009-02-03.
  6. ^ Robinson, Mike."Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Handguns", Chicago Tribune, June 2, 2009
  7. ^ National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. City of Chicago, IL, 567 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009)
  8. ^ Schorsch, Kristen. "Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun case". Chicago Breaking News. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
  9. ^ "U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago". www.nraila.org. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  10. ^ Miller, Erin (March 2, 2010). "Podcasts: McDonald v. City of Chicago". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
  11. ^ Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns", The New York Times, March 2, 2010
  12. ^ CNN. "Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban", CNN
  13. ^ "A new Second Amendment case". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  14. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
  15. ^ http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=112&sid=168737cb-33a1-47bd-9238-f0410fbb6b73%40sessionmgr112
  16. ^ "ChicagoGunCase.com » FAQs". www.chicagoguncase.com. Retrieved 2009-07-06.
  17. ^ "[T]he words 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seems to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." Erwin Chemerinsky et al., Constitutional Law § 6.3.2 (3d ed. 2006) (quoting Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166 (1968) (Black, dissenting))
  18. ^ "Law.com - Liberals Use Supreme Court Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights". www.law.com. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  19. ^ "Constitutional Accountability Center filed brief in NRA v. Chicago". www.theusconstitution.org. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  20. ^ "Constitutional Law Professors / Constitutional Accountability Center Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners" (PDF). www.chicagoguncase.com. Retrieved 2009-11-29.
  21. ^ [1]
  22. ^ Amicus curiae brief filed by Sen. Hutchinson, et al.
  23. ^ Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson press release, November 23, 2009
  24. ^ "NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win". www.npr.org. Retrieved 2009-07-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago&oldid=370609924"