How will firearm legislation be rewritten? SCOTUS incorporates 2nd Amendment

No time for analysis, but McDonald v. Chicago case has been resolved at the Supreme Court. In a 5 to 4 decision (expected), SCOTUS has ruled the 2nd Amendment is incorporated.

Here is the full opinion (PDF, 1MB) More at Fox News.

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Dimsdale on June 28, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    When new immigrants (the ones who come here legally and become citizens the honest way) take their citizenship exams, they are taught that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.


    Maybe new members of Congress and new presidents should be required to take the citizenship test.  Just to prove they can, of course.


    As they say in court, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    • phil on June 29, 2010 at 3:33 am

      Perhaps Supreme Court nominees, also. Four dissenters, time and time again,on fundamental issues is deplorable.

    • Dimsdale on June 29, 2010 at 4:18 am

      Let's throw in some economics too!

    • Murphy on June 29, 2010 at 7:21 am

      After the passing of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV; "Dodd, who is retiring* this year, pulled a pocket Constitution that Byrd had given him, an act bestowed on all freshmen by the elder statesman".

      It's too bad none of them had taken the time to read it.


      *being pushed out

    • Dimsdale on June 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm

      The kind of "retiring" Dodd is doing is like being ordered to "volunteer" in the Army.


      I would love to see someone quiz Dodd on his pocket Constitution.  I mean, it has been gathering dust for 30 years, so he should know some of it.  I would like to think it was all dogeared and worn, but that would be wishful thinking on my part, judging by his record.

  2. Jeff S on June 29, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Remember Sonia Sotomayor last year, when asked, said that she supported the 2nd amendment during the confirmation hearings.  Lo and behold, when she sided with the dissent on the 2nd amendment ruling said that she couldn't support the second amendment.  Don't believe their words believe their actions.   

  3. phil on June 29, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Following the Supreme Court businesses I realized that my grandchildren will never be exposed (in school) to the United States' most important documents. I downloaded and printed the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights for them. (Aside:  I downloaded, printed and mailed those documents to Dodd, Lieberman and Courtney last year.  You can, too.)  In re-reading the Declaration of Independence, it occurred to me that we should again send it to the Royalty (As they see themselves) in Washington D.C. "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "

  4. sammy22 on June 29, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Even the Bible is not taken literally by the majority of Christians.

    • phil on June 29, 2010 at 8:24 am

      The Bible wasn't ratified by the people of the United States.

    • Steve McGough on June 29, 2010 at 8:37 am

      Do tell! Which sections of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments should not be taken literally?

    • Dimsdale on June 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      Once the door is opened on selective application of "favored" parts of the Constitution (see the Second Amendment), it is the beginning of the end of this country.


      Supreme. Law. Of. The. Land.  What part of that is confusing?

  5. sammy22 on June 30, 2010 at 3:40 am

    All of them, Steve. And they have not been taken literally either, as it has been pointed out time and time again in this blog. Plus, there are a number of amendments, that have "fixed" a few things. And "which people of the United States" have ratified the Constitution?

  6. PatRiot on July 1, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Questioning the Constitution is like questioning the Bible.  It is done in the mode of gaining greater understanding. These are not to be ripped apart or blatantly disregarded. And then, post destruction, letting the legal beagles decide if your actions were proper or not after the fact. 

    Though they think they exercise sedition, they commit treason.

    Up front cognitive critical thinking and respectful decisions is what is required. 

    These fools with their Marie Antoinette attitudes risk America's future.

  7. PatRiot on July 1, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    It is clear which Justices respect the rights of individudals and those who don't. 

    I suspect that even though the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of our rights, that we will still do battle with each state and local authority.  It should now be, as it always should have – like free speech, possible to protect your self EVERYWHERE you go, even across state lines.

    Let's see how Blumenthal spins that one.  Currently CT does not honor any other states carry permits and only a few honor ours.

    This ruling is like Arizona's law on illegals.  A reaffirmation of what is already law.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.