Supreme Court Supports Gun Rights... Again

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Right to Keep and Bear Firearms is an individual right that applies to all levels of government.

In a sprawling, 214 page document (check out www.greeleygazette.com to view the entire document), SCOTUS determined that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was enforceable against the states, making the individual ownership of usable firearms an enforceable right against municipalities, counties, and states.

The case, McDonald v. Chicago, deals with a challenge filed two years ago against that city's ban on owning handguns. The challenge was filed just days after SCOTUS held, in a similar case, Heller v. Washington DC, that the right to keep and bear arms as described in the Second Amendment was an individual right and based, in part on an individuals right to self defense. The Heller decision addressed only laws put in place by the federal government, as Washington DC is ruled under federal, not state, laws.

The McDonald vote was split along ideological lines with moderate and conservative justices voting for incorporation and liberals voting against. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states." Alito noted that the decision that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens, in his final day on the bench after more than 34 years, said that unlike the Washington case, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive - quite literally - to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority, in an effort "only to respond to some aspects of JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent." Justice Thomas concluded by writing, "JUSTICE STEVENS' approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since
While the decision makes it clear that the ownership of firearms can not be banned by any governmental entity, it also leaves the door open for some regulation. No criteria was provided by the court to determine whether such regulation, or what level, would be allowed.