Bigger win: Heller or McDonald?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
(This is with under the premise that we get a positive outcome out of McDonald v. Chicago.)


Now, most likely we won't be getting an outcome on what level of scrutiny is applied, that is for another day. But simply saying that it is ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.......




What is the more important victory:


1.) Heller v. DC


2.) McDonald v. Chicago




It is sort of what came first situation, the chicken or the egg.



Yes, Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms....in a Federal Enclave.



If McDonald affirms that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states that is also extremely valuable.



What are your thoughts?

 

[Frank Ettin]

They're both important, but Heller is the foundation of everything.

Heller is clear judicial recognition and affirmation that the Second Amendment describes an individual, not a collective, right. It took the collective right theory off the table.

McDonald we hope will establish that the Second Amendment applies to the States. But even with application of the Second Amendment to the States, if the collective rights theory still had legs, we really wouldn't have all that much. In fact, I don't see how we could even have pursued McDonald without first having a clear recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

 

[natman]

We wouldn't have McDonald if we didn't have Heller.

 

[coloradokevin]

If my understanding of these cases is correct, then the replies that came before mine were both well put.

Rather than deciding which case is more important, I guess I'd say that I feel like Mcdonald is taking over where Heller left off (or, at least I hope it goes that way). Without Heller being decided as it was, Mcdonald wouldn't have mattered. But, the Mcdonald case is important to better define the picture in these post-Heller times.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm superstitious enough to believe one shouldn't count one's chickens . . . .

 

[ming]

I'm with you MisterMike. Based on Heller I think we're in good shape, but then again who knows how SCOTUS will rule on anything. Strange things do happen.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The two are interlocking and codependent.

A negative Heller coupled with a positive McDonald would result in:

A federal guarantee to an individual right to join a state organized militia. (BZZZT! WRONG!)

A positive Heller with a negative McDonald results in:

A federal guarantee to an individual right to own a gun in federal enclaves. (BZZZT! WRONG!)

Negative Heller, negative McDonald:

England. (BZZZT! WRONG!)

Positive Heller, positive McDonald:

YOU ESS AAY!

Now *that's* the answer.

 

[Mike OTDP]

It goes further.

Heller pretty well spikes Federal gun bans. Which means that the hoplophobic fantasy is deader than a doornail at the national level, but we have to fight state-to-state and town-to-town.

If we win McDonald, gun bans are dead. Period. There will be ten to fifteen years of mopping up to be done, but it'll be like segregation after Brown vs Board of Education - the chicken's head is off, but it takes time for the legs to stop twitching.

 

[everallm]

FYI, the Supremes did not release McDonald today, looks like Monday is the day.......

 

[hirundo82]

With the decision in Skilling today written by Ginsberg, McDonald is the only case undecided from the February sitting and Alito is the only justice who hasn't written a majority opinion for that sitting.

 

[legaleagle_45]

With the decision in Skilling today written by Ginsberg, McDonald is the only case undecided from the February sitting and Alito is the only justice who hasn't written a majority opinion for that sitting.

Very good news. Other than Thomas, Alito is probably the strongest 2nd Amend supporter. The only question I have is how long before we start hearing whining from anti gun groups about Sammy "Machine Gun" Alito?

(Yes, I am pretty confident about the outcome now).

 

[Airman193SOS]

You should have been confident before. For SCOTUS to give an adverse result in McDonald it would require them to essentially reverse their position from Heller, and something like that happening so soon after the decision was made would wreck their credibility, and credibility is all they have to make their decisions stick.

 

[Bubbles]

I look at Heller I as the cornerstone, McDonald as the mortar, and Heller II, which is headed to the DC Court of Appeals, will be the next building block.

 

[nitetrane98]

Of course we all hope for a positive SCOTUS ruling but the more I think about it the more I believe it will essentially be just another small victory in the long war we face for RKBA. There are no penalties, so to speak, for violating a SC ruling. Any entity can make up their own little dog and pony show regarding CC.

I think they will continue to make them as onerous as possible. If a law is challenged as being too restrictive, after a few years of languishing in the appeals system, they might back off a little but basically still a PITA for a gun owner. The whole thing starts again with a new law written just slightly less onerous than the last. No court is going to say, "This is what your law should say."

We're still in for a long fight, ultimately.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You should have been confident before.

I was. The fact that Ginsburg authored the opinion in Skilling leaving Alito to presumably author the opinion in McDonald makes me even more confident. However, nothing is a sure thing.

 

[Colonel]

Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right...

The Second Amendment never "gave" anybody anything.

To say that it does is looking down the wrong end of the barrel.

 

[wishin]

Bigger win: Heller or McDonald?

I'd have to go with Heller. McDonald would be baseless without Heller. That the Second Amendment applies to the States means nothing without SCOTUS decision in Heller.

 

[UpTheIrons]

The Second Amendment never "gave" anybody anything.

To say that it does is looking down the wrong end of the barrel.

Right. The ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights do not 'give' - they affirm a reality.

To say that amendments "give" rights is to say that any possible law is fine as long as we can invent a reason for it somewhere, regardless of the fact that it may violate human rights (i.e. segregation, voting rights, etc.).

So I have to say that Heller is the bigger win, because it reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment as a pre-existent right, which will further be reaffirmed with a decision in favor of McDonald.

 

[Rmeju]

We can't really know which is better without actually seeing what we get in McDonald (this, even assuming a win).

Frankly, neither of them mean much of anything without the other, so it's hard to say which is more important. The goal is to take away the ability of federal, state, and local legislators hold our RKBA hostage so that they can look like they're tough on crime and get reelected. That goal is not advanced in any meaningful way without strongly pro-2A rulings in both cases.

Heller is only 'more' important in that it needed to come first before we could have McDonald. Even then, the actual important rulings - thinks like sinking many NY/NJ/CA gun laws, particlarly the onerous paperwork and permits required for mere possession - are yet to come, and will likely be based, at least in part, on McDonald and Heller.

Right now, we're really only still setting the stage for what actually needs to get done.

Rmeju

 

[Radagast]

Justice Ginsburg has authored the majority opinion in the Skilling case. All other judges other than Justice Alito have authored an opinion this term. That leaves 'Machine Gun Sammy' Alito to write the majority opinion in McDonald. I am feeling confident that the McDonald decision will be a relatively good one for second amendment advocates.

 

[saturno_v]

So guys, let me understand this..

With Heller the nonsense about the 2A applying only to a militia or a citizen force rather than an individual right is definitely in off the table?? Seriously???

I hope the experts say yes....

I have several arguments with people try to twist the meaning of the 2A when it is clear to every 6 years old on what it means...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (comma, new sentence) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Jesse]

Let me rain on this parade.
Lame Duck Session. Executive Orders. History.

I have thought the 2nd amendment front is just too quiet with this bunch in power. Keep in mind I am seeing all this with renewed eyes and ears since last year.

Katrina gun confiscations: I still don't know how that could have happened with a Republican in the White House in charge of those Federal officers?

Federal law might not mean that much. Certainly doesn't get in the way at the moment does it?

 

[Straight Shooter]

Katrina gun confiscations: I still don't know how that could have happened with a Republican in the White House in charge of those Federal officers?

When the stuff hits the fan those in power want the guns, period.

 

[natman]

So guys, let me understand this..

With Heller the nonsense about the 2A applying only to a militia or a citizen force rather than an individual right is definitely in off the table?? Seriously???

I hope the experts say yes....

I have several arguments with people try to twist the meaning of the 2A when it is clear to every 6 years old on what it means...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (comma, new sentence) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes.

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

SCOTUS, DC v Heller, 2008, page 2

Hope that's clear enough.

 

[Manco]

You should have been confident before. For SCOTUS to give an adverse result in McDonald it would require them to essentially reverse their position from Heller, and something like that happening so soon after the decision was made would wreck their credibility, and credibility is all they have to make their decisions stick.

That's true enough, and their generally dismissive reaction to Chicago's attorneys bringing up points from the losing side of Heller doesn't help Chicago's case one bit.