The U.S. Surpreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision that extends the protections in the Second Amendment down to the state and local levels.

The 5-4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago said that the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" against all 50 states and their local jurisdictions. While the case did not directly overturn any gun-law, the decision clarifies legal principles that will decide whether Chicago's handgun ban and gun registration scheme is constitutional.

It will also allow challenges to may state and local laws concerning firearms.

The Votes:
For incorporation:
Justice Alito (author of the opinion)
Chief Justice Roberts
Justice Kennedy
Justice Scalia (Concurring but wrote a rebuttal to dissenting Justice Stevens)
Justice Thomas (Concurring, but arguing the privlieges or immunities clause was correct)

Dissenting (opposed)
Justice Breyer (author of the primary dissent)
Justice Ginsburg
Justice Sotomayor
Justice Stevens (dissenting, separate opinion)

This was the last session for Justice Stevens, 90, who is retiring from the bench after serving for 35 years. Appointed in 1975 by President Ford, Stevens is one of the longest serving justices on the court. In tribute on Monday, the last session of the year, court staffers and even some viewers sported bow ties in a tribute to Stevens.

Also present on Monday was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's husband for 56 years, Martin David Ginsburg, died on Sunday. While we have our differences of opinion with Justice Ginsburg in some constitutional matters, we respect her dedication, professionalism and her keen probing questioning as a Justice. Our condolences and sympathies to Justice Ginsburg and her family on the loss of her husband.

What the decision means:
The Second Amendment's limitation on government powers now reaches down to state and local levels. This will undoubtedly trigger a number of challenges to different gun laws in dozens of states. States, like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey will see constitutional challenges raised against many of their laws.

For instance, the Supreme Court has long held that rights may not be subjected to taxes, fees or similar requirements in order for you to exercise them. Nor may governments require you to obtain their permission to exercise a right (with some exceptions). So, permits like a NYC or NJ "purchase permit" that must be obtained before buying a gun will probably not survive a court challenge.

Regulations that limit how frequently you can purchase a firearm (once per month laws) or specify that you wait hours or days to actually obtain the firearm (waiting periods) are unlikely to survive a challenge.

Some restrictions untouched:
Just as other rights have their own limits, so too will the 2A right. The courts must decide exactly what those limits are. While you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to create panic, similar laws that prohibit waving a gun around or shooting it in public without just cause will stay in place.

In all likelihood, so will prohibitions against possession of firearms by felons, mental patients and other "prohibited persons." We doubt that restrictions against carrying firearms into government buildings, courts, post-offices and school grounds will be overturned right away either.

Moving Forward
While we may rejoice in this decision, it is no time to rest on our laurels. There will be new attempts to strangle our rights. For instance, it would be ironic if the courts finally recognized the right fully, only to have it subverted by a United Nations treaty. Moreover, you can bet the anti-gun lobby will attempt to exploit any loophole it can to push future laws.
Now is not the time to strap on your new magic blaster and stroll down the street without a permit - not quite yet. Now is the time to contribute more money to your favorite pro-gun lobbying or legal foundation. The Second Amendment Foundation is my choice, but you may prefer the NRA, GOA or your local rifle & pistol association. All these donations can help.

Please post your comments, reactions and thoughts. What do you think the anti-gun lobby will try to do next?

Mayor Daly has already fired the first salvo...he proposes a severely restrictive possession idea, which, I do not believe, is a "reasonable" gun control law, which the decision allowed the states to do. I'm pretty positive there will be more court challenges before the laws in Chicago change to benefit the law abiding citizens of the metro.

Chicago has a long history of being dirty. I can't see any way that that will change anytime soon. We have to be ever vigilant in this fight, and while it does seem to offer some hope, it will be a long battle for some of these states to overturn the gun tyranny. It will be an even harder battle to undo the decades of brainwashing.

As far as the UN goes, the sooner we separate ourselves from that crackpot organization, the better!

I only breezed through a few of the 214 pages, but it just amazes me that a US Supreme Court justice would say that a consensus of the people should determine what the constitution means! Of course that only applies to the second amendment. I'm sure he wouldn't use the same criteria for the abortion issue.

Justice Breyer doesn't believe there is a history or tradition involving self-protection and handguns?!?! Where do they find these people?

Justice Scalia's separate concurring opinion was written specifically to address Steven's dissent. In there, he did a magnificent job of calling Stevens an idiot without using the term.

On Steven's expressed theory of incorporation, Scalia replies...
(emphasis added)

For instance, when addressing Steven's concept of judicial restraint...


I think too that Scalia saw this as his last chance to take some parting shots at Stevens, who retired at the end of this session. I think Stevens was effectively "used up" some years ago and has simply hung on because he liked the job.

Justice Scalia worded that beautifully. Where would we be without him right now?!?
I think he hung on for the right time to get replaced with another like him.