Getting the McDonald decision in almost real-time...

[ELB]

Eugene Volokh has the following post up:

Be (Among) the First to Hear About the Court’s Forthcoming Decisions, and to Read Them
Eugene Volokh • June 27, 2010 4:42 pm

SCOTUSblog live-blogs the Supreme Court’s handing down its opinions, and provides both the results and the links to the full opinions pretty much as soon as they are available. This coming Monday, the Court should be handing down opinions in four cases dealing with very significant issue — whether business methods are patentable (Bilski), whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment (McDonald), whether the appointment procedure for members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is constitutional (Free Enterprise Fund), and whether public universities may apply their antidiscrimination rules (including bans on discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation) to the officers of religious student groups (Christian Legal Society).

If you must know the results in one or more of these cases with no delay, go to the SCOTUSblog live-blog post at 10 am Eastern, or, if you prefer, a few minutes before. The live-blogging software will post the reports as they come out, with no need for you to reload the page.

http://volokh.com/2010/06/27/be-among-t ... read-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right now, when I hit the second link in Volokh's post, I get "Not Found Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here" but I expect that is because they are not live-blogging right now. You might want to put that link in your favorites and hit it tomorrow (Monday) at 10 a.m. Eastern, which is 9 a.m. Texas time by Beiruty's calculations.

[Beiruty]

10 EST is 9:00 CST ( Dallas Time)

[ELB]

You're right. Added instead of subtracted. Brain glitch I guess. Dang. 9 it is.

[rbftfire]

Did I hear correctly? Did 2a rights prevail?

[KD5NRH]

10:04
Erin: Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
10:04
Tom: Gun rights prevail
10:05
Erin:
The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
10:05
Tom: 5-4
10:05
Erin: Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

[LaserTex]

Doug

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Second Amendment won by a 5 to 4 vote with the usual suspects dissenting. Incorporation under the Due Process Clause, not Privileges or Immunities. (Thomas was in the majority, but believes the Privileges or Immunities Clause applies.)

Chas.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Opinion

[ELB]

The Second Amendment won by a 5 to 4 vote with the usual suspects dissenting. ...
Chas.

Thank you again, W. and everyone who voted for him, especially in 2000.

[Mike1951]

The Second Amendment won by a 5 to 4 vote with the usual suspects dissenting. Incorporation under the Due Process Clause, not Privileges and Immunities. (Thomas was in the majority, but believes the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies.)

Chas.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Opinion

Not as smart as some here.

Would Privileges and Immunities have been better?

[LarryH]

I understand "reversed", but what is the significance of "remanded"? That almost sounds as if they're sending the case back to the Seventh(?) to "correct their error".

I read the synopsis and saved the file for later study, if ambition suddenly sets in.

[tomneal]

Would Privileges and Immunities have been better?

Some have speculated that if our side won on P&I, then almost all gun laws would have been null and void including those preventing guns in airports. It would be a huge victory for our side but...
It would scare the sheeple.
It might scare them to the point where the 2nd Amendment would be rewritten.
No mater how poorly politicians and judges interpret the 2nd, I don't want them to be given a chance to rewrite.

We don't want our side to be too far away from the main stream of public opinion. What the NRA has been doing since the Mid-1970's is to modify public opinion. Progress has been slow but it has been moving steadily in the right direction.

My goal, is to roll back all gun laws to pre-1968 levels. I am not sure that will happen in my lifetime but you have to have a goal.

[Mithras61]

I understand "reversed", but what is the significance of "remanded"? That almost sounds as if they're sending the case back to the Seventh(?) to "correct their error".

I read the synopsis and saved the file for later study, if ambition suddenly sets in.

Exactly so. The Seventh Circuit has been instructed that the Second Amendment DOES TOO apply to state and local governments (as does the Heller decision, with its leaving the door open to SOME restricitions), and they need to rethink their decision in McDonald v. Chicago in light of this.

[Purplehood]

I took two things away from the brief read that I made:

- Sotomayor dissented. She now is batting 0-1 in my book. Put me on record.
- There seemed to my uneducated mind to be too many references to the Handgun as the weapon of choice for self-defense. This alarms me. Could it possibly lead to limitations on long guns?
It particularly struck me as wrong as it made reference to Americans in general and by implication throughout our history as preferring them. Yet in reality the use of handguns has only become popular in US culture with the advent of revolvers and then semi-automatics. Prior to that the long gun appeared to be the most common weapon.
Am I reading too much into this?

[ELB]

I took two things away from the brief read that I made:

- Sotomayor dissented. She now is batting 0-1 in my book. Put me on record.
- There seemed to my uneducated mind to be too many references to the Handgun as the weapon of choice for self-defense. This alarms me. Could it possibly lead to limitations on long guns?
It particularly struck me as wrong as it made reference to Americans in general and by implication throughout our history as preferring them. Yet in reality the use of handguns has only become popular in US culture with the advent of revolvers and then semi-automatics. Prior to that the long gun appeared to be the most common weapon.
Am I reading too much into this?

I read it this way: both Heller and McDonald lawsuits dealt directly with handguns, so the SCOTUS directly addressed handguns. To get to that, they had to decide if the 2A protected the right to self-defense if the individual (not just the right to have a gun for militia duty). The answer was "YES" in both cases - at both federal and state levels. So if the right to self-defense is fundamental, what is the most popular tool for that. Handgun.

Long guns, hi-cap magazines, and all that will still have be hammered out, in some jurisdictions at least, but the foundation is set. The 2A protects a fundamental right that can't be legislated away just because the legislature feels like it, and self-defense in particular is part of that protected fundamental right.

[Purplehood]

I took two things away from the brief read that I made:

- Sotomayor dissented. She now is batting 0-1 in my book. Put me on record.
- There seemed to my uneducated mind to be too many references to the Handgun as the weapon of choice for self-defense. This alarms me. Could it possibly lead to limitations on long guns?
It particularly struck me as wrong as it made reference to Americans in general and by implication throughout our history as preferring them. Yet in reality the use of handguns has only become popular in US culture with the advent of revolvers and then semi-automatics. Prior to that the long gun appeared to be the most common weapon.
Am I reading too much into this?

I read it this way: both Heller and McDonald lawsuits dealt directly with handguns, so the SCOTUS directly addressed handguns. To get to that, they had to decide if the 2A protected the right to self-defense if the individual (not just the right to have a gun for militia duty). The answer was "YES" in both cases - at both federal and state levels. So if the right to self-defense is fundamental, what is the most popular tool for that. Handgun.

Long guns, hi-cap magazines, and all that will still have be hammered out, in some jurisdictions at least, but the foundation is set. The 2A protects a fundamental right that can't be legislated away just because the legislature feels like it, and self-defense in particular is part of that protected fundamental right.

I hope that is indeed the trend, and that I am just being my usual pessimistic-self.