The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took a step in the right direction by striking down a Chicago ordinance banning handgun ownership, but it wasn’t a big step and it will give attorneys, lower courts and advocates on both sides of the issue plenty of room to stomp around in the now muddied ground.
Because of its limited scope, some experts expect the decision to have little impact on gun trafficking and gun violence.
“The key to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (in urban and rural areas) is getting tougher about enforcing existing laws, and closing gaping loopholes that undermine the federal ban on gun purchases by criminals,” writes John Feinblatt in the New York Times. Feinblatt is the chief policy adviser to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and the lead architect of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. Last year, New York had fewer murders than in any year since 1963.
Chicago and Mayor Richard Daley, however, have different ideas. Instead of focusing on already illegal guns, they want to make more guns illegal for more people. In the wake of the decision, they are planning new ordinances to limit gun ownership within the framework of Monday’s Court decision.
The good news gun owners can take from McDonald v. Chicago is that it affirms a 2008 decision by the Court supporting gun ownership as an individual right. McDonald v. Chicago further extends that right by applying it to the states. Lead plaintiff Otis McDonald explains his argument and what the decision means in simple terms.
“I will not be pinned down in my house without anything to defend myself when they (criminals) walk the streets. I will not be victimized by the law that tells me I cannot have a handgun in my own home, when I know there’s a right that’s out there that’s given to me.”
The Supreme Court agrees by the narrowest of margins, and only Justice Clarence Thomas agrees on grounds that would mean the most to gun owners and do the most to protect Second Amendment rights at the state and local level.
Thomas, writing separately from the rest of the majority, argues that the Chicago ordinance should have been banned under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars states from enacting laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The other four justices in the majority held for another clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, substantive due process, which has been widely critized for expanding judicial activism, and which, in this case, leaves states and municipalities more legal room to maneuver.
One can only hope that in future cases, the Court will define gun rights more broadly and allow only those restrictions necessary to keep criminals at bay.
