🏛️ Do States Control Gun Rights? SCOTUS Decides! | McDonald v. Chicago (2010) | Opinion Announcement

[@KnowYourSupremeCourt]

Thanks for all the great comments. I just uploaded the oral argument of this case. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJSUZoKCoJuAoqc Let me know what you think. Enjoy!

[@dad7130]

No, The Bill of rights clearly say the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". That's a directive there is no "will" to assess.

[@Anon54387]

It's ridiculous to claim that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. The states RATIFIED the Bill of Rights, and what good is limiting government if it only prevents the federal government from infringing the rights but the state governments can? It is entirely inconsistent and illogical to claim this. Brightest legal minds in the nation claim this? Tyranny is tyranny whether the federal government or a state government is doing the infringing of rights. The Bill of Rights says that these rights shall not be infringed, but it is fine if my state government does at long as the federal government does not? What good does that do a citizen? It also doesn't explain the sheer lack of firearms control laws prior to the Civil War, and people DID have trial by jury notwithstanding this.

[@dragonf1092]

The excuse of public safety is moot, meaningless, irrelevant cannot be used as a legal excuse to conspire against and deprive any American citizen from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to keep and bear arms whatsoever.

[@Quakeboy02]

Agreed, if one excuse can be used to invalidate the 2nd Amendment, it's easy to foresee another excuse being used to shut down churches, another to legalize searches and seizures without due process, and yet another to eliminate the right not to be forced to incriminate oneself. In essence, allowing a loophole against any of the Bill of Rights, paves the way for invalidating all of the Bill of Rights. The arguments by the minority were specious and immaterial, either the Bill of Rights delineates actual immutable rights, or it doesn't, regardless of quibbles that may be found against any of these Rights.

[@kentladuke5890]

The problem is the states do what they want & ignore our rights!!!

[@Leslie-es5ij]

And without penalty !

[@NoBody-tz4fb]

Only if you let them

[@stephenbrinckerhoff3510]

As far as they are limited, unless they are without limits by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and that power remains in our Constitution.

[@dragonf1092]

The word ARMS covers all weapons and armor that can be used both offensively and defensively.

[@douglasbockman2772]

Hey dragon! I deeply appreciate your extensive knowledge about law and about abusive judge bad behavior. Those bad judges should be immediately removed, but that is not happening with example like Sotomayor's ignorance about declaring bump stocks as machine guns. Other examples I am certain you are clearly aware of. Thank you so much for your thorough comments. Never give up and good luck to all of us.!

[@stephenbrinckerhoff3510]

Does a person with only a knife provide a defend himself? Just the fact you have one is often an item of interest for authorities. An object of scrutiny.

[@dragonf1092]

@stephenbrinckerhoff3510 no it is not a item of interest all law enforcement officials should know the legal law the second amendment.

[@stephenbrinckerhoff3510]

@@dragonf1092 Oh, you mean like Joe's comment that a person can't buy or own a cannon because the Second Amendment doesn't allow it? WRONG!

[@dragonf1092]

@@stephenbrinckerhoff3510 arms therefore no all American citizens can buy and own a cannon. Go back to school and learn how to read.

[@kenkarish826]

States rights do not Trump the Constitution...

[@steveworden3109]

The second amendment does not say bear arms in their homes. It says the right to bear arm PERIOD

[@justindozone2160]

Nor does it say anything about "self-defense"

[@dragonf1092]

No judge anywhere in the united states of America has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America under the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment shall not be Infringed clause,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined.

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

Yes in the united States of America. The states are dejure and the State of XXXX are defacto incorporated within Washington DC located in the Pacific Ocean,

[@dad7130]

I don't understand why Primacy/supremacy isn't spoken of more often. I'm curious as to the recourse of the people when Identical or practically identical suits are brought to bear. It seems like if the result of the law is to infringe, then all gun control laws should fall under instant injunction because they will cause significant change that is likely to be reversed.

[@douglasbockman2772]

Never confuse a right with a privilege. The 14th does require due process which already is a right not privilege. The difference is that the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the people by the people. In other words "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union ......" (and yes the preamble is also part of the US Constitution) reserved the second amendment for the people. Privilege necessitates an "authority" such as the state or federal government that controls privileges such as a driver's license. The Second Amendment was reserved by the people for the people uninfringed. So almost all gun control laws are illegal. (The only legal gun laws would have to be outside of the idea "keep and bear", and this idea could easily be abused such as denying availability of "new" guns or newly acquired guns( the keep part).) But in order to keep arms they have to be available such as by purchase or gift. Easily abused. I insist that you never confuse a right with a privilege.

[@dragonf1092]

@@douglasbockman2772 if a state converts a right (Liberty)into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (Liberty) with impunity. Shuttlesworh V. City of Birmingham, Alabama,373 US 262. Impunity Exemption from punishment or freedom from injurious consequences of action.

[@douglasbockman2772]

@dragonf1092 well, you alone must possess the background knowledge that distinguishes right from privilege. Did you ever consider just how much money is spent on lawyers quibbling over simple definitions? Point is that all citizens should enjoy their rights without having to case by case prove their ownership. You might consider the new Penny acquittal.

[@andrewewels3054]

It has only been 233 years and the citizens still don't have a clear bright line ruling upholding the 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights , Constitution of USA .

[@dragonf1092]

No states do not 1. )Supremacy clause. 2.) Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1. 3.) second amendment shall not be Infringed clause. 4.)9th amendment enumeration clause. 5.)14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined. All gun laws in the united states of America are unconstitutional and therefore illegal and void.

[@johnfranceschi3271]

The bill of rights applies to ALL STATES! See u.s.c. article 6. See u.s.c. 14th amendment. If it didn't, any state could run rough shod over all of our rights and say ,for example that no search warrants are required. I.e. , the 4th amendment does not apply to you.

[@stevenmitchell6347]

The US Constitution overrides ALL state Constitutions and laws. The Bill of Rights supercedes any and ALL rules, legislation, or laws of ANY body in this country. Personally, I believe that those who violate the Constitution and Bill of RIGHTS in ANY government position MUST BE prosecuted for their CRIMINAL violation of those rights.

[@justindozone2160]

No Constitutional right is subject to state or local interpretation. Any law that limits the rights established by the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional, illegal, and is to be treated as if it never existed. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to "Form a more perfect union" in part by specifying rights that are common to all American citizens regardless of their state of residence or current location, and declare that those rights are inalienable.

[@dragonf1092]

Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 applied the bill of rights to all states not just the federal government long before the 14th amendment was written and adopted.

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

The 14th amendment created a new type of citizen v Citizen. The citizens are foreign to the united States of America and are under plenary powers of the United States corporation.

[@Sarcasmarkus]

It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” James Madison Federalist 48, 1788

[@dragonf1092]

US supreme court "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,though having the form and name of law,is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnet V. Vallier,16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886). A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury V. Madison 5 US 137(1803). An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879). Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda V. Arizona,384 US 436 p. 491. Therefore heller and rulings of the supreme Court today on gun laws are all moot, meaningless and void period.

[@dad7130]

I agree in that it's supposed to work that way, but when has there ever been an automatic injunction on any constitutionally questionable law? This is why people keep pushing gun control laws and they get applied even when the gist of the law is that it will infringe on the right to bear arms.

[@BigPhilsSaws]

Because it is the duty of the beneficiary to not obey it

[@douglasbockman2772]

@dragonf1092 just love where you are going with your arguments, yet supreme court jesters(and there are some) beg to differ. I wonder what you think about USC 242 "Color of Law" when illegal gun control laws are enforced. Should judges be removed or imprisoned for bad behavior. The US Constitution suggests removed, but again the US Constitution also suggests that they should be imprisoned with the supremacy clause. This should be easy, peasy constitutional law that even a criminal like sleepy joe biden or Jamie raskin should be able to teach at the junior colleges that each of them worked at. Course each of these characters left that profession to become sleazy politicians. What do you think?

[@kellym3531]

Clearly the dissentor has never lived or camped anywhere "interesting. " They always leave out the part about reeling in a government that has gone out of control.

[@Quakeboy02]

And in this case, the dissenting judge deliberate used language that was not in the 2nd Amendment (i.e. protection in the home), as well as ignoring the special place the Bill of Rights holds within our constitutional structure. The ratification of the Constitution was rejected because of the lack of a guarantee of citizens' rights, and was not ratified until the Bill of Rights (for the citizens) was added.

[@dragonf1092]

All judges need to look up the meaning of the words freedom, Free, Liberty and learn them.

[@dragonf1092]

Article 2 section 4 gives law enforcement no qualified immunity for any crimes they commit whatsoever against the American people.

[@fleonard4]

Equal protection under the law, Qualified Immunity is ILLEGAL!

[@PrimoGIU]

Correct, no immunity!

[@ChronoMatsumari]

To argue against the dissenting opinion: the individual right of self defense is implicit in order for a collective to have such a right

[@fleonard4]

OBVIOUS: "On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court made history! Justice Samuel Alito announced the landmark decision in McDonald v. Chicago , declaring that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to states." It's sad that we have to argue this, and that states violate our rights, all of them. YES, the US Constitution is the law of the land, it applies 100%. States agreed to this when they joined the union, it's literally a condition. If they don't want to follow the US Constitution, then they need to secede from the union.

[@dad7130]

As a representative of the people, the Federal Government should sue the states on constitutional matters, especially BILL of Rights issues.

[@Quakeboy02]

There is no legal means of secession provided in the Constitution. Membership in the United States and abiding by the Constitution is a one-way street.

[@jimkelly1613]

​@@dad7130hope we will be represented in January.

[@dragonf1092]

Judges need to go back to school and learn how to read and read the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.

[@ChronoMatsumari]

Very simple - the right to keep and bear arms is upheld and is not something that any state can simply choose to ignore with its own legislation; the right is codified in the constitution at the federal level and cannot be violated or restricted by any state.

[@BillyBlaze7]

and all that is a mute point since it happens every single day in every single state

[@ChronoMatsumari]

@BillyBlaze7 the point is that now that the Supreme Court has ruled on it, we can now ignore all unconstitutional legislation at the state level since it is all null and void ~ Marbury v Madison. Any and all arrest are unlawful and all prosecutorial efforts are malicious.

[@dragonf1092]

14th amendment section 1 Text prohibits any state from passing or enforcing any form of gun laws whatsoever.

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

It has been shown the 14th and 16th amendments have not been properly ratified, but are enforced thru adhesion contracts with one agreeing to them! All contracts take precedence over rights?! That is the opinion of some but not all rulings, especially of the lower end "courts" (banks).

[@MW-jj1rn]

It's not just at home. Law abiding citizens do not choose when, where, how, why, or where we will encounter a violent or deadly attack or encounter with a criminal. It is time for SCOTUS to end these unconstitutional laws.

[@Quakeboy02]

Yeah, that was one of the more glaring misstatements by the minority. The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect themselves (and others) regardless of where they happen to be.

[@MrMrmetro]

It's scary that that second AH is allowed to be in a position to interpret the Constitution.

[@shanemorales7846]

My understanding is that the constitution is the law of the land and the land being the entirety of the United States

[@dragonf1092]

We are a constitutional republic not a democracy. Article 4 section 4 of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

Th Organic Act 1871 created a new jurisdiction of the democracy. Washington DC is a separate country from the united States of America. This jurisdiction is overlayed with the use of zip codes and accepting domestic mail at one home.

[@Sarcasmarkus]

technically its both. We also haz a constitution and a federal government so "Federal constitutional democratic republic" would be an accurate descriptor.

[@dragonf1092]

@Sarcasmarkus the words democrat, democratic, democracy exist nowhere in the declaration of independence or the constitution of the united states of America whatsoever. Democrat/democracy is the biggest lie/false information ever spit in the united states of America.

[@peach8352]

It does applies.

[@victorhauk5973]

The Supreme Court is a part of the federal government. It is established as such by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is here arguing whether or not it should disregard the very Constitution which instituted it. You gotta love lawyers, who twist words with an unparalleled facility.

[@Quakeboy02]

And change the wording of a law they disagree with, and ignore the parts of the Constitution that would completely invalidate their argument, as happened here with the minority opinion.

[@victorhauk5973]

@ Shakespeare was right

[@Quakeboy02]

@@victorhauk5973 So was Pogo (We have met the enemy, and he is us.)

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

[@dragonf1092]

14th amendment section 1 Text NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES The second amendment is the privilege and immunity (RIGHT)of every single individual natural born or naturalized American citizen. ABRIDGE Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope, diminish, deprive. All judges, senators, Congressmen, governor's, president are all state officials elected or appointed to a specific state and therefore have no legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever in any state in the united states of America period under the 14th amendment section 1 of the united states constitution supreme law of the united states of America. The shall not be Infringed clause of the second amendment prohibits them all such authority and jurisdiction. Infringed Actively break the terms of,act so as to limit or undermine;encroach on.

[@Quakeboy02]

It's hard for me to understand how the 1st amendment can be considered universal, along with the 4th and 5th, but the 2nd amendment somehow lives on borrowed time. The argument for the minority seemed a bit lacking to me, if not downright disingenuous. Either each and every one of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights has equal standing and universal application, or none of them do. If any one of them is not universal in its application, then the Bill of Rights does not delineate actual rights, but rather merely options that can be ignored at will by the 50 states.

[@Anon54387]

What's more is that they read the 1st Amendment in the broadest possible terms by saying technology invented after the ratification is included in freedom of the press, but somehow firearms invented after the ratification don't count and we should be restricted to muskets. They read the 1A in the broadest possible terms and simultaneously the 2A in the narrowest. Then there are those who say the ammunition isn't covered by the 2A. A firearm isn't usable as a firearm without ammunition so ammunition is also covered. To analogize to the 1st Amendment again, it'd be like saying one has the right to a printing press but not ink or paper, no sane person would accept that argument, but when it comes to the 2A people accept an argument equivalent to that about ammunition.

[@Quakeboy02]

@@Anon54387 Many people consider the 2nd Amendment to be a 2nd rate right. They would balk at the idea that the various states could limit or license the right to 1st Amendment protections, but have no problem with the various states nibbling the 2nd Amendment to death with a flurry of picayune laws and regulations.

[@Anon54387]

@@Quakeboy02 Indeed, I was just expanding on the inconsistency you mentioned, I know I am preaching to the choir here. Nibbling the 2A away, you just described California government, sadly the government I'm subject to.

[@Quakeboy02]

@@Anon54387 In fact, the original Constitution, the one WITHOUT the Bill of Rights, was soundly rejected by the voters. They had to add the Bill of Rights in order for the states to join the Union. And if you look carefully, you will find that the 2nd Amendment was changed between it's original wording and what appeared in the Bill of Rights.

[@BrucevonBehrens]

A disarmed society is called a dictatorship.

[@PatriotNJ-qj8fv]

“We the People”, don’t loose sight of the implication and substance of that verbiage.

[@m_hub3957]

if a State cannot have a 2A sanctuary zone then all State 2A laws are also fully unconstitutional

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909) Which goes against Brown v Board of Education that separate is not equal. The United States Supreme Court only hears cases for the corporation!

[@bobbywise2313]

The 14th amendment has a clause that says all rights of US citizens are also rights of citizens of the states.

[@Quakeboy02]

That was conveniently ignored by the minority opinion.

[@daveblevins3322]

It applies to everyone in every state.

[@travismillar7513]

Applies to the entire country

[@motolife515]

The second opinion is that of a tyrant.

[@GarrettYoung-y4s]

"Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.

[@A2ZwithD]

I did not say in the home.

[@logangodofcandy]

Take any argument to its ultimate conclusion. We have the right to keep and bear any weapon for any legal purpose, or we have on right at all, unless our rulers have decided that we have met their subjective requirements.

[@stuff8195]

What a bastardized reading of Heller by Breyer

[@bradembler4060]

Shall not be infringed no matter what y’all say

[@SunSand_74]

The constitution was written in layman's terms as all laws should be written! The problem is that people who were elected into office to serve the people on all fairness, have simply forgotten where they came from! The fact of the matter is guns don't kill people, "people kill people !" Opinions are just that, opinions..........what interpretation is required to differentiate them! In that sense, should we ban knives, baseball bats, cars and anything else used to commit a crime ? In closing, all these judges have protection themselves, so why can't we defend ourselves!?

[@Quakeboy02]

One of the biggest problems with the Constitution is that languages shift over time, and politicians *will* take advantage of that shift in order to effect additional restrictions on the citizens.

[@BrucevonBehrens]

​@@Quakeboy02They will intentionally change language to fit what they want.

[@ebwhite1775]

All federal law supercedes state laws

[@Kap360]

You have to be careful with that as well because if a state is not in violation of the constitution but the government is hen what?

[@ebwhite1775]

@Kap360 the constitution supercedes all state laws and all state constitutions

[@dad7130]

Not true, only those powers enumerated in the constitution as being set aside for the federal government have primacy or overrule state and/or local laws. If they aren't enumerated in the constitution then they are RESERVED for state and/or local (however the various states distribute those responsibilities) primacy. This is stated in the constitution.

[@ebwhite1775]

@dad7130 states can not make unconstitutional laws and yes it is true. States can make laws yes but again they can't go against federal law or the constitution

[@Sarcasmarkus]

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[@dragonf1092]

Heller is moot void

[@Sarcasmarkus]

100% not

[@dragonf1092]

@Sarcasmarkus US supreme court "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right,creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnet V. Vallier,16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886). Precedes Heller therefore rendering Heller moot null and void irrelevant, meaningless.

[@XistenceisFutile]

The left loons here in Michigan are cramming as much anti 2A crap as they can in the lame duck session

[@Quakeboy02]

That's pretty much typical of the left. It takes time to repeal those illegal laws, and there is no way to redress the wrongs committed by these illegal laws on the citizens.