Two years and two days ago, the Supreme Court found that Dick Heller had the right to own a handgun to protect his family in his home in the Federal enclave of the District of Columbia. The Court held that the Second Amendment was an individual – not collective – right. Today, the Supreme Court held that Otis McDonald had that same individual right and that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. A plurality thought the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Due Process Clause while Justice Thomas thought the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated this right.
The full opinion of the Court, the concurring opinions, and the dissents cover 214 pages. You can order a paper copy for FREE directly from the Supreme Court. It is called a slip decision. Just call 202-479-3211 ext. 1 and ask for the slip opinion in Case 08-1521. This makes a nice memento!
Reaction of the participants
And now Hizzoner Mayor Daley.
Reaction from the Second Amendment Foundation.
And the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association were instrumental in bringing this case.
The NRA, which was given time to argue as a respondent on behalf of the plaintiff but were not a part of the McDonald case, issued this statement.
From the Gun Bloggers
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell Blog has spent most of the day reading and analyzing the decision.
Live Blog – The Decision
Thomas’ Privileges or Immunities Opinion
Says Uncle has some interesting posts in his quick and to the point manner.
VPC on McDonald. And if you have the Violence Policy Center, then you have to have Brady.
Breda of The Breda Fallacy has this reminder, Congratulations, Chicago
And in a short post Michael Bane has this to say, SCOTUS Rules! Second is Fully Incorporated….
The great Dave Hardy in his Of Arms and the Law Blog notes the number of citations of many of the Second Amendment scholars in the decision.
The Law Bloggers were not to be outdone
The Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, has a number of posts.
Very interesting to see both the majority and Justice Thomas reference the racist roots of gun control so strongly. Also, while Alan Gura didn’t win on the privileges and immunities argument, he did better than he might have. And by arguing that way, he made due-process incorporation of the Second Amendment, which looked radical not too long ago, look moderate by comparison!
He offers his first impressions here. And he links to this interesting post on the power of paradox.
Reynolds and other bloggers are featured in a discussion on the case in the New York Times. And as a sidebar here, I’d love to have the gun collection pictured in the New York Times story!
The lovely Professor Ann Althouse weighs in here.
The Volokh Conspiracy has a number of important posts from their collection of law professors on the case.
Predicting the Impact of McDonald
What Now for Limits on Gun Possession by 18-to-20-Year-Olds?
McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws
Why Not the Privileges Or Immunities Clause?
And finally, the SCOTUS Blog has a number of posts on the case.
McDonald: big victory for liberty
McDonald impact: slew of new legal challenges
Still fighting the last war on the blog is Professor Jack Rakove of Stanford, A challenge of Heller’s historical interpretations
Thomas’ concurrence on the Privileges or Immunities Clause
Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again
Analysis: Gun rights go national McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, Opinion recap
And that sums it up for the evening. While there are a ton more posts opining on the case, I’m whupped!
Wait – just one more! The Law Blog in the Wall Street Journal calls Clarence Thomas’s concurrence potentially his finest hour.