Yesterday, Tuesday March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago. (see NWI Lawyer article, “U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Oral Arguments Tomorrow: Fate for Chicago Gun Law Uncertain”. Read the 77-page transcript here.

On one side of the issue is Larry Keane, Senior VP & General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (“NSSF”). In an OpposingViews.com article, “Analysis of Arguments of McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Gun Case”, Attorney Keane is hopeful that the Supreme Court will strike down the law based on Second Amendment grounds, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

On the other hand, Mayor Daley argues in a Loyola-Phoenix article, “Gunning for Chicago” that gun regulation is necessary to protect the citizens of Chicago.

Fox News notes that President Obama is simply hiding from the issue. In a recent article, “Why is Obama Hiding Under His Desk?” Fox News calls attention to the fact that the President, while not addressing the issue, has made superficial remarks supporting the 2008 Heller decision.

PBS has posted a video outlining the issues of the case here, “Supreme Court Weighs Scope of Right to Bear Arms”.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday, March 2, on whether the Chicago restrictive ban on handguns will be upheld or struck down on Second Amendment grounds in McDonald v. City of Chicago. (see McDonald Petition for Certiorari, National Rifle Association Petition for Certiorari, City of Chicago Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari; San Jose Mercury News article, “U.S. Supreme Court to Take on Battle over Gun Rights”; Seattle Times article, “Supreme Court to Scrutinize State, Local Gun Laws”) If this issue interests you, for a more detailed discussion please check out a local Chicago area website here.

Chicago will be arguing that the Second Amendment’s language, “…for a well regulated militia…” restricts the Right to Bear Arms to this limited purpose, while opponents will argue that through either incorporation or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment apply the Second Amendment universally to the states.

This has been a hot button issue for as long as I can remember. In law school, I remember students standing up and angrily pointing at each other in our Constitutional Law course, which was highly atypical for such educated, civilized students. I think technology has intervened in this issue to muddy the waters of what our Forefathers may have intended. On one hand, it was extremely important to them that the government was not the only source of armament. They were even concerned about a permanent standing army. For better or for worse, our military has irreversibly grown to be a full-time, permanent standing defensive (and some might argue offensive) force. The only comparable force that exists today to the militia of colonial days is the respective national guards of each state. But as we have seen in recent years, these Guards can be deployed at the whim and discretion of the federal government (e.g. Irag, Afghanistan, et al.). Are these state ‘militias’ truly the check on government that our Forefathers intended?

Second, the government can only regulate the possession of firearms among the law abiding citizenry. Laws passed making the possession of firearms illegal does not change the behavior of deviants within our society. Passing more restrictive gun laws disarms the average, law abiding citizen, while gang members and perpetrators of violent crime continue, unaffected.

On the other side of the issue, certain weapons are inherently dangerous to human beings. They have little or no recreational utility, and are designed for a single purpose: the destruction of human life. If the possession and use of weapons are restricted, it will economically reduce the production of such weapons as a whole, and perhaps theoretically reduce the number of violent crimes as a result.

Either way, practical concerns should be left to the legislature. The real question is, can states regulate the possession of certain firearms, and if so, to what degree? The Constitution is ambiguous on this point. In a 2008 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, District of Columbia v. Heller, there is some fundamental right for individuals to possess firearms. (see Los Angeles Times article, “Justices Affirm Gun Rights”.) If this new court including Justice Sotomayor follows this 2008 decision, it has little choice but to forbid such regulations. If the Court decides to distinguish the Chicago law from previous decisions, it can find that the 2008 decision does not apply.

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Chicago restriction is more restrictive than the restriction in Heller. In that case, the District of Columbia law banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and also prohibited the registration of handguns. It provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorized the police chief to issue 1-year licenses, and required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. In this case, Chicago sought to ban most types of handguns altogether in order to protect the City from handgun violence. One other notable difference is that in Heller, the restriction was not promulgated by state authority. This decision will address whether the Second Amendment prohibits the states from regulating firearms.

One thing is for sure: the stakes are high. Forty-nine (49) amicus curiae briefs have been filed supporting and in opposition to the ban. Stay tuned to NWI Lawyer for updates.

Under a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday in Maryland v. Shatzer that allows police to re-question a defendant after he invokes his Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right to a Lawyer, and the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent. The Court determined that confessions are admissible where police cease questioning at the invocation of either of these rights, and reconvene the questioning after 14 days. (see also NPR story by Nina Totenberg; Tony Mauro, National Law Journal, “‘Miranda’ Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court.”). In a related case, Florida v. Powell, The State of Florida “re-wording” of the Miranda warning–omitting the Right to Attorney–was held to be constitutional.

If you have been accused of a crime, DO NOT speak to the police. You have the ultimate responsibility in safeguarding your own constitutional rights. Contact an attorney immediately to insure that your rights are protected, and insist that questioning cannot continue until your lawyer is present. Refuse to answer any questions, and invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege right away. Make it absolutely clear that you refuse to answer any questions until your attorney is present.

This article is not intended to provide legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. Please seek legal assistance from an attorney. This article was written for entertainment and educational purposes only.