Supreme Court considered whether the 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms applies to states. Chicago involved a 2nd Amendment challenge to a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned private handgun ownership in the city. Ina divided Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v.
I don't have much that's original or interesting to say about the historical and jurisprudential arguments made by the majority and the dissent in McDonald v. But I did want to say a few words about the possible implications of McDonald. Let me begin with the question: A restriction might not be covered by the constitutional text, the original meaning of the text, the traditional understanding of the text's scope, the background legal principles establishing who is entitled to various rights, or the categorical exceptions set forth by binding precedent such as Heller's statement that bans on gun possession by felons, bans on concealed carry, and several other kinds of gun controls are constitutional.
A restriction might reduce various dangers in the case of arms possession, chiefly the dangers of crime and injury so much that the court concludes that even a substantial burden is justified. The government might have special power stemming from its authority as proprietor, employer, or subsidizer to control behavior on its property or behavior by recipients of its property.
As I argue in my article, the doctrine related to many other constitutional rights can be understood through this sort of framework.
Some lower federal courts dealing with Second Amendment challenges after Heller have indeed applied these standards of review. And while McDonald doesn't purport to discuss what standard of review courts should apply, it might still affect the matter.
The incorporation precedents under the Due Process Clause generally hold that the Fourteenth Amendment applies against the states those rights that are "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Now as it happens there is also talk in the Court's precedents that restrictions on rights should be evaluated under strict scrutiny if those rights are fundamental.
I don't think that's quite right partly for reasons I explain in my article. But the Court has said this, and as a result some lower courts have concluded that restrictions on the right to bear arms should be evaluated only under intermediate scrutiny, because the right isn't really fundamental.
Here, for instance, is a passage on the subject from Heller v. IIWL D. Thus, the court turns to an analysis of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny is the most appropriate standard to be used to evaluate restrictions on the exercise of the Second Amendment right.
The court will not infer such a significant holding based only on the Heller majority's oblique references to the gun ownership rights of eighteenth-century English subjects.
Partly because of this though also based on other argumentsthe court concluded that "intermediate scrutiny is the most appropriate standard of review to apply to the challenged laws. Yanez-Vasquez, WL D. McDonald's conclusion that the right is fundamental might change this, and might lead courts to apply strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny.
But my sense is that judges do care about the distinction; if this is so, then McDonald's conclusion that the right as fundamental could prove important.
The Court also writes, responding to Justice Breyer's dissent, Justice Breyer is incorrect that incorporation will require judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions and thus to make difficult empirical judgments in an area in which they lack expertise.
As we have noted, while his opinion in Heller recommended an interest-balancing test, the Court specifically rejected that suggestion.
Say, for instance, that the government argues that restrictions on handgun possesion by toyear-olds are constitutional, based on data about gun crime by people in that age group an argument that the district court seemed to accept, though in a somewhat procedurally complicated context, in United States v.
Under a standard intermediate or even strict scrutiny framework, this sort of argument might well work, on the theory that the government has shown that the law is substantially related to an important government interest in protecting life and preventing crime, or even that the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
The same might be true with regard to arguments that bans on gun possession by people who are under domestic restraining orders pass intermediate or strict scrutiny, and so on. Or perhaps there are other reducing-danger arguments that could be approved under intermediate or strict scrutiny but without the use of statistical evidence.
These are just tentative predictions; I may well change my mind after thinking more about the decision, and in any event courts might well not put quite this much stock in the particular McDonald passages that I refer to.Jun 29, · McDonald v.
City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws. Posted Tue, June 29th, pm by Eugene Volokh the court turns to an analysis of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny is the most appropriate standard to be used to evaluate restrictions on the exercise of the Second Amendment right.
gun control Essay Examples. An Analysis of the McDonald v. Chicago Case on Gun Control ( words, 2 pages) The court case I chose is fairly recent it is McDonald v. Chicago the case encompasses 4 major flaws McDonald and other Chicago citizens saw in Chicagos gun control and petitioned to change them.
The flaws go as followsProhibition of. Jun 28, · City of Chicago means that for the first time, state and local governmentsâ€™ gun regulations must comport with the Second Amendmentâ€™s protection of t Analysis: state gun regulations and McDonald - SCOTUSblog. Jun 29, · South Dakota v.
Wayfair, Inc. Quill Corp. v.
North Dakota and National Bellas Hess Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois-- which held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the state -- are overruled.
Janus v. Chicago Police have said for years that Chicago needs tougher gun control laws and sentences to decrease crime.
Guglielmi, the department's spokesman, has said the department has identified and arrested people who are responsible for the city's violence, but there's more work to be done.
The court case I chose is fairly recent it is McDonald v. Chicago the case encompasses 4 major “flaws” McDonald and other Chicago citizens saw in Chicago’s gun control and petitioned to change them.