McDonald v. Chicago Oral Argument

In the D.C. v. Heller case, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, as that ban violated the Second Amendment.

One of the issues left unresolved in that case was whether the Second Amendment applied against state and local governments, or just the federal government. The McDonald v. Chicago case may answer that question with respect to the Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans.

The oral arguments in this historic case take place on May 26, 2009, at 9:30am at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located at 219 S. Dearborn Street in Chicago, on the 27th floor. The public is welcome to come and listen to the oral arguments, and see history in the making.

Oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case are scheduled to begin shortly, with a decision in the next few months. This case, which will determine whether the 2nd Amendment prevents state and local governments from violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is right up there with D.C. v. Heller in terms of importance to our gun rights. Hopefully, this case will be decided in a favorable way, finally putting an end to the injustice of the Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans.

Oral argument was May 26, 2009, and the court issued its opinion on June 2, 2009, affirming the trial court's decision that the Chicago and Oak Park gun regulations pass constitutional muster.

The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, that the Court should “incorporate” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the “privileges or immunities” clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice Antonin Scalia — the author of the Heller opinion and the Court’s most fervent gun enthusiast — was sarcastically dismissing the “privileges or immunities” argument.