| Contact: |
Timothy Sandefur
Principal Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation
tms@pacificlegal.org
(916) 419-7111 |
|
PLF on gun-rights decision: good ruling for wrong reason
SACRAMENTO, CA; June 28, 2010: Today’s Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutional right of Chicago residents to possess firearms for personal protection is “an important moment in constitutional history,” said Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, who authored the Foundation’s friend of the court brief in McDonald v. Chicago. “While some parts of the decision are disappointing, the bottom line is that the State of Illinois may not legally disarm law-abiding citizens. They have a constitutional right to defend themselves from criminals who never have obeyed anti-gun laws themselves.”
The 5-4 decision held that the constitutional right to possess firearms for personal protection— which was the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year—applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process of law” clause. PLF’s brief urged the Court to use a different provision of the Amendment called the “privileges or immunities” clause, a provision of the Constitution that has been virtually ignored since an 1873 case called the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Timothy Sandefur
Principal Attorney
|
“It’s very unfortunate that the justices still ignore the crucial privileges or immunities clause,” said Sandefur. “Almost 150 years ago, the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors intended that to be the central part of the Amendment and, instead, the Supreme Court has refused to enforce it. This is sad, because that provision would offer Americans much stronger protection against unjust state laws.”
PLF’s brief, which was joined by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute, argued that the Court should overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases and provide stronger federal guarantees for individual rights. “Ever since that decision, the Supreme Court has relied on other, less precise constitutional theories to protect individual rights,” Sandefur explained. “And this has allowed judges to use their own political predilections to avoid guaranteeing rights they don’t like—including the freedoms of entrepreneurs and property owners, who today have very little constitutional security.” Nevertheless, Sandefur said today’s decision is “good news for individual freedom. The Supreme Court has never before clearly spoken on the degree to which states must respect the fundamental human right to possess firearms for personal protection. It’s gratifying to see that the justices are willing to protect this right against intrusive state governments.”
About Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation is the oldest and most successful public interest legal organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations in courts nationwide. View PLF’s Liberty Blog.
|