Gun Check: The Three Most Important Ongoing Second Amendment Cases

Addressing who can own guns, where they can carry them, and whether guns can be transported to a second home

Jennifer Deasy shoots her Colt Government .380 caliber pistol at a target at Niagara Gun Range in North Tonawanda, N.Y., Thursday June 26, 2008. Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

Jennifer Deasy shoots her Colt Government .380 caliber pistol at a target at Niagara Gun Range in North Tonawanda, N.Y., Thursday June 26, 2008. Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices’ first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

 writes: Since the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the ruling in the 2008 Heller case (which said the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms) to states and localities, the Court has so far evaded any new case about the limits and meaning of the Second Amendment.

Those two cases, though, did not resolve all the important questions about how and when and why the government can restrict Second Amendment rights. Hellerand McDonald said that the right to possess commonly used weapons for self-defense in the home cannot be infringed, but Justice Antonin Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller explicitly said this didn’t mean anything goes when it comes to Americans and their guns.

Many other cases that try to define the whos, whens, and hows of our Second Amendment rights are percolating through the lower courts, and some are trying to wend their way to the Supreme Court.

Here are three of the most relevant active cases involving the Second Amendment, ones that promise to expand Second Amendment liberty, and resolve some of the core issues left unresolved by Heller and McDonald. Two of them will likely be considered for certiorari by the Supreme Court (though whether they will take them up is always hard to predict).

Read the rest of this entry »


Pro-affirmative Action Side Mocked by Conservative AND Liberal Supremes

Buh-heeheheehee! Muh-huhuhuhahahahahha. Lemme catch my breath, whew..mm..buhuhuHAHAHAHAheheheee!

Hahahaha….B-b-b-b-b-Buh-heeheheehee! Muh-huhuhuhahahahahha. Lemme catch my breath,  whew..mm..buhuhuHAHAHAHAheheheee! I need a glass of water, give me a minute hahahhahaHAHAHA

Robby Soave reports: Proponents of race-based admissions had a rough time during oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week, as both the conservative and liberal wings of the court humiliated an attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action for her faulty reasoning.

Shanta Driver, an attorney for the coalition, got off to a bad start when she said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was “to protect minority rights against a white majority.”

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia immediately interrupted her.

“My goodness, I thought we’ve — we’ve held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all races,” he said.

Read the rest of this entry »


Is Racial Preference Unconstitutional?

 writes: The marble friezes above the Supreme Court chamber depict 18 great lawgivers, including Moses, Solomon, King John and William Blackstone. Come Tuesday, as the bemused — or so one hopes — justices listen to oral arguments in a case from Michigan, they might wonder why Lewis Carroll is not included. He would have relished the Alice-in-Wonderland argument the justices will hear, which is as follows.

Although the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment says “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” the following provision of Michigan’s Constitution violates the equal-protection guarantee: No public university, college or school district may “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Yes, in Tuesday’s Through-the-Looking- Glass moment, the court will be urged to declare that Michigan’s ban on unequal treatment violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuitdivided 8 to 7, with five dissents — has said just that, citing what is called the political-restructuring doctrine. Read the rest of this entry »