Quantcast
Connect with us

Supreme Court gun case could imperil basis of state laws

Published

on

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case that could affect the ability of states and cities to pass gun bans, and, more broadly, could shift the balance of power between the states and Washington.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns, it could lead to a slew of challenges against state laws on everything, not just guns.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court will rule on McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case in which a Chicago resident has challenged that city’s handgun ban as unconstitutional.

But the case goes much further than the typical bickering over the Second Amendment. That’s because it has more to do with the 14th Amendment than it does with the Second.

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s law restricting handgun possession, on the grounds it violated the Second Amendment. But that didn’t settle the issue because, as Laura E. Davis reports at Yahoo News, Washington, DC, is federal territory. And the Supreme Court has long maintained that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply the same way to state laws as it does to federal laws.

But the challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban isn’t about the Second Amendment; it’s about the 14th Amendment, which states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

ADVERTISEMENT

So if the Supreme Court rules Chicago’s handgun ban unconstitutional — which many observers say is likely, given the court’s conservative leanings in recent years — it would likely be on the grounds that the law “abridged the privileges or immunities” of a US citizen.

The result, Davis argues at Yahoo News, could be a slew of challenges to state laws — any state law that a challenger believes “abridges” his or her “privileges or immunities.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The potential implications of this case are huge – and not just for gun rights. If the privileges-or-immunities argument prevails, it would bring back a constitutional argument that has been effectively dead since 1873, when a decision (known as the Slaughter-House cases) said that the clause only protects rights of national citizenship. But if the court reinterprets this clause, the wording is so broad that some think it could bring a flood of challenges to numerous other laws. Others fear a privileges-or-immunities revival will lead to too much judicial subjectivity.

Davis notes that, if the court does rule to strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, “it will almost certainly have to contradict its rulings in earlier cases.”

Given the court’s recent leanings, such as its decision to overthrow decades of legal precedent to end restrictions on corporate campaign spending, that doesn’t seem to be an unlikely scenario.

ADVERTISEMENT

‘Chosen as lead plaintiff because he is African-American’

The Chicago Tribune reports that the challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban was crafted by the same lawyer who challenged the Washington, DC, ban before the Supreme Court two years ago. The paper notes that the lead plaintiff was chosen precisely because he doesn’t fit the stereotype of a “gun nut” — he’s a black man who votes Democrat.

Alan Gura, the Virginia-based attorney who successfully argued the Heller case, had spread the word that he was looking for litigants in Chicago. … His goal was to find a diverse group of individuals willing to represent the cause.

ADVERTISEMENT

He eventually settled on four people: Adam Orlov, a white, 40-year-old libertarian … David Lawson, a white, 44-year-old software engineer … Lawson’s wife, Colleen, a multiracial 51-year-old hypnotherapist … and [Otis] McDonald.

Amid the clamor of the gun-rights debate, McDonald presents a strongly sympathetic figure: an elderly man who wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood. … McDonald and three co-plaintiffs were carefully recruited by gun-rights groups attempting to shift the public perception of the Second Amendment as a white, rural Republican issue. McDonald, a Democrat and longtime hunter, jokes that he was chosen as lead plaintiff because he is African-American.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. Unlike other news sites, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.



Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

CNN

Angry Minnesota farmer bashes ‘insulting’ Trump comments that ‘we’re great patriots’ during his trade war

Published

on

President Donald Trump has insulted at least one Minnesota farmer by his claim that farmers are "great patriots" who want him to continue his trade fight against China.

"This wound is self-inflicted, by our president," said Gary Wertish, who is the Minnesota Farm Bureau president. "We definitely agreed with it in the beginning. But it doesn’t appear that there’s a plan B. Some of the callous comments come, especially from the president, you know, that farmers are 'winning,' we’re 'great patriots,' that’s very insulting. That’s coming from someone who never has faced the challenges of a family farmer. I go into the bank and tell the lender I can’t make the payment because we lost our market? The banker is going to tell me you don’t have to make your payment because you’re a patriot."

Continue Reading

Facebook

MSNBC pundit nails Trump for only attacking Black voices on Fox News

Published

on

Democratic strategist Joel Payne called out President Donald Trump Sunday for his attacks on Fox News when he was leaving New Jersey.

Before Trump landed in Marine One at Morristown, New Jersey, he tweeted an attack on Juan Williams, the only Black pundit on the Fox News show "The Five."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163167660764532736

Trump briefly addressed Williams, before he told members of the press that he found it appalling Fox News hired a friend of Hillary Clinton's, whose name he couldn't even remember.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Missouri official choose Dr. Seuss’ ‘Oh the Places You’ll Go’ for swearing-in ceremony instead of ‘The Bible’

Published

on

A Missouri county official is being both celebrated and attacked after a decision to forgo The Bible for her swearing-in ceremony and opted for a copy of Oh, The Places You'll Go by Dr. Seuss.

The Friendly Atheist at Patheos captured the story, posting a photo of St. Louis City Councilmember Kelli Dunaway's children holding a copy of the book while she took her oath of office.

This was the scene last week at the STLCO government center. Democrats took back control of the council and @DunawayKelli was sworn in on a copy of “Oh the Places you’ll go” with her children❤️ so proud to be part of #TeamKelli pic.twitter.com/iJ1dxfZ1Zg

Continue Reading
 
 

Thank you for whitelisting Raw Story!

As a special thank you, from now until August 31st, we're offering you a discounted rate of $5.99/month to subscribe and get ad-free access. We're honored to have you as a reader. Thank you. :) —Elias, Membership Coordinator
LEARN MORE
close-link
close-image