Early indications from opening arguments in McDonald v. Chicago lean towards the Supreme Court ruling in favor of applying the Second Amendment to the states, but also indicated less stringent limits could survive.
The Supreme Court convened March 2 to hear arguments in what’s unofficially dubbed the sequel to the District of Columbia v. Heller case. That case struck down gun ownership restrictions in Washington, D.C., because the city falls under federal jurisdiction. McDonald v. Chicago wants that right to extend to the state level via the 14th Amendment.
Attorney Alan Gura, arguing for the Chicago challengers, asked the Court’s justices to employ a clause in the 14th Amendment, which says “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Justice Antonin Scalia, however, was not impressed.
“What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. Scalia refered to Gura’s assertion that the Court has been going about making parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in the wrong way.
The Bill of Rights was originally a restriction on only the power of the federal government. The Court later ruled that most but not all of the protections under the Bill of Rights apply to states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which says “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
James Feldman, representing the city of Chicago urged the Court to treat the Second Amendment differently because it concerns a lethal product. “Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Feldman, “All the arguments you make against … it seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation under the Second Amendment. We haven’t said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller.”
A decision in McDonald v. Chicago is expected by the end of June.—courtesy New York Times and Associated Press

For a complete transcript, go to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf