This sentence has caused a lot of controversy in the U.S. in recent years. Most notably, anti-firearms politicians have tried to claim that the second amendment applies only to a "militia" and not the individual citizens. However, we have long known that this was not the intent of those who wrote the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States has recently issued rulings that leave no further room for debate.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:

• Protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia.

D.C. v. Heller

2nd Amendment protects an individual right

The Heller case clarified a number of important issues, but perhaps the most important was its ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to service in a militia.

Federal handgun bans are unconstitutional

The Supreme Court's ruling established that banning handguns violates rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. Further, it found D.C.'s requirement that firearms be unloaded and disabled is also unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny

Within its decision, the court also reaffirmed that any regulations on rights protected by the Constitution must pass standards of "strict scrutiny," the most stringent standard of judicial review. This legal term simply means that before the government can limit your constitutionally-protected rights, it must demonstrate that beyond all doubt, the restrictions are absolutely necessary for the public good.

Along these lines, the justices made a point to mention that certain restrictions are still constitutional under strict scrutiny. Examples given include preventing felons or those with mental illness from possessing firearms, and forbidding firearms in sensitive places such as schools.

McDonald v. Chicago

Handgun bans are unconstitutional

This case is often referred to as the one that proved Chicago's handgun ban was unconstitutional and violated the rights of Chicago citizens. And thanks to the ruling in this case, Chicago residents may now defend themselves in their homes.
But the decision in this case actually had a much more profound impact.

States may not overrule the 2nd Amendment

McDonald v. Chicago established that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states - meaning that states, like the federal government, may not establish laws that violate the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

It should seem like common sense that "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means no government, state or federal, may make laws that prevent us from keeping or bearing arms. However, the judicial system is a slow, deliberate, and meticulous machine. The court ruling in D.C. v. Heller made it clear that handgun bans were in violation of the 2nd Amendment, however because that case applied to Washington D.C. rather than a state it did not technically apply to states. It was therefore necessary for a separate case, McDonald v. Chicago, to have this spelled out.

The right to carry firearms is coming for Illinois

The Heller and McDonald cases lay the groundwork for a successful legal challenge to the Illinois ban on carrying firearms. All of the previous arguments made against allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms have been overturned by courts:

• The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right - not the right of a militia
• States do not have the authority to disregard the 2nd Amendment
• Strict scrutiny must be used to limit the 2nd Amendment

Since all 49 other states protect their citizens' rights to carry firearms and we have not seen a negative impact on public safety, anti-firearms politicians can no longer claim that banning our right to carry is necessary for the public good. Their arguments no longer hold weight, and the courts will surely throw out the Illinois ban on carrying firearms.

However, it is still in our best interest to pursue a legislative approach to this problem rather than wait for the courts to force it upon is.

The two ways we can protect our right to carry firearms are:

• Legislative - member of the Illinois General Assembly, our state representatives and state senators, can vote for legislation that creates a system for licensing law-abiding Illinois citizens to carry firearms.
  
  This solution is quick, simple, and wastes no taxpayer dollars (and will, in fact, generate revenue for our state).
• Judicial - somebody goes to court and challenges the Illinois laws that prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms. This is guaranteed to succeed based on previous legal rulings, however there are many downsides:
  
  This is very time consuming, many years will be wasted in court battles against the state. It will be very costly both for whomever challenges the law, as well as the taxpayers (who will be funding the state's defense).

Needless to say, it is in everyone's best interest to pass Right To Carry legislation now rather than wait until the courts mandate it.

There are no comments yet. Post a comment to start a discussion!

Add comment

Name:
Comment: