Recent SCOTUS gun decision has very little effect for most of the states.

Little known fact is that most states have a "2nd amendment like" provision in the State Constitution. Thus even if the 2nd didn't apply to the States the State is already restricted by State Constitution.

So how does your State stack up?

I looked at the State Constitutional RKBA provisions here:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

They fit into 3 rough 3 categories

Stronger language than Bill of Rights (29 states)
AL, AK, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KS, KT, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NB, NV, NH, OK, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Similar language to Bill of Rights (14 states)
AR, GA, HI, ID, MA, NM, NC, ND, OH, OR, RI, SC, TN, VA

No State Protection (7 states)
CA, IA, IL*, MD, MN, NJ, NY

So really the McDonald v. Chicago ruling has the most effect in these 7 states.


*IL "protection" is essentially worthless.
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the state can't infringe upon the RKBA except via Police power which is under the control of the state.


Personally I like Nebraska language the best.


Here are all the states with language stronger (or clearer) than federal language.

Alabama:
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Alaska:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

Arizona:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Colorado:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Connecticut:
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

Delaware:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida:
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. ... (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).

Indiana:
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).

Kansas:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky:
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).

Louisiana:
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).

Maine:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).

Michigan:
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).

Mississippi:
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).

Missouri:
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

Montana:
The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska:
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

Nevada:
Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

New Hampshire:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

Oklahoma:
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Pennsylvania:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

South Dakota:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Texas:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).

Utah:
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).

Vermont:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Washington:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming:
The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

severely restricting the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

McDonald really doesn't expand upon Heller. It simply says the right as decided in Heller applies equally to state & local govt.

Heller is very important decision in that for example it would prevent a nationwide handgun ban.
For most states McDonald has very little effect given that for 30+ states they already have a stronger limitation on state/local powers in place.

As an example. Nebraska already has a strong RKBA provision in its constitution thus even prior to McDonald any chicago style gun ban in Nerbraska would have been unconstitutional at the state level.

Pennsylvania (1776) said in “A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Vermont (1777) followed Pennsylvania’s lead and said "A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."\

ON EDIT ADD:
PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

and they had far cleaner (at least today) language than the federal BofR.

I think a lot of this legal wrangling would have been avoided had the federal govt adopted language closer to some of the states.

Take PA for example. Not only does it have what you posted above but it goes on to say....

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21)

Hindsight being 20-20 and all. Had the 2nd been worded slightly different say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of EACH CITIZEN to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or even better simply:

"The right of EACH CITIZEN to keep and bear Arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

we wouldn't even have a debate today.

so ah... yawners

so ah... yawners.

granted by a king, i.e. divine right of kings, or whether each person had rights from nature.

SCOTUS said in Heller:
QUOTE
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”
UNQUOTE

It was an utterly radical concept at the time. It was the final nail in the coffin of Monarchy power.

The colonists weren't upset because the King wouldn't give them their rights back (firearms seized, trial without jury, arrest for assembling, violence against protesters, etc) they were upset because they believed it wasn't the Kings to take in the first place.

Compared to even 100 years prior that was a radical shift in philosophy. Right EXIST. They aren't granted by the King or government and therefore can't lawfully be taken by King or government. That any government doing so is without legitimacy because it derives it power from the PEOPLE, the governed.

those laws are passed by congress not Presidents. This ruling only changes the laws in Chicago. It is a victory for both sides as the language speaks of defense of the home only and makes clear that restrictions on handguns are legal by the states. I'm very happy for the law abiding citizens of that town. Hope they end up with reasonable rules that allow them to purchase and own. For now that will be up to the voters and politicians of Chicago. In the mean time state laws for Ill. Ca. Wis. and Hawaii will stand. It will be up the voters of those states to demand changes, if that is what the majority of voters want.

"In the mean time state laws for Ill. Ca. Wis. and Hawaii will stand. It will be up the voters of those states to demand changes, if that is what the majority of voters want."

Or another court challenge. We don't accept tyranny by majority. I am not saying any of the laws in those states ARE constitutional however just pointing out there is another avenue for change (Constitutional Challenge). It is entirely possible that the restrictive licensing in HI or NY will be found unconstitutional. Likely there will be a challenge to CA sporting rifle ban (per Heller banning an entire class of weapons overwhelming used for lawful purposes doesn't pass Constitutional muster).

that the Ca. law could be challenged under this ruling. However, by the courts language, I don't think the court sees other restrictions as tyranny. All other rights in the Bill of Rights have some restrictions. Seems the court has put those restrictions in the hands of the states and local governments that are part of the representative democracy(majority) nature of our government.

The question before it is a ban on firearms. That question in answered.

Like we discussed down thread where the line between reasonable restriction & infringement lies will take some time but the idea that anything short of a ban is fair game forever is unlikely.

There is very little history on 2A but we can compare the courts ruling on other rights.

A right can be infringed even without a ban if the effect is to hinder usage of the right.
A fee charged on rights has been found Unconstitutional in the scope of voting tax even if the fee is minimal.
In Heller the court found that requiring all weapons to be locked was Unconstitutional because is precluded a lawful use (self defense).

Chicago still has a byzantine registration system. Weapons must be brought to Police station to be registered, they must be registered each year, failure to register weapon before registration lapses makes it illegal forever in Chicago, a fee must be paid per weapon per year in perpetuity. Many would consider that infringing despite not being a ban. The intent is clearly to make legal usage of RKBA as difficult and expensive as possible to reduce usage.

interpreting them in such a way as to permit the executive branch to ruthlessly infringe on such things as freedom of speech.

Given the Bush and now Obama assertion they can assassinate US citizens under existing law I don't see any barrier to a rogue president.

I could have a house full of firearms here in Chicago if I wanted. As long as none of them are handguns.

If I can own a modern rifle, I don't see why they can not ban a modern handgun.

“The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,’ would fail constitutional muster.”

The question on legitimacy of handgun bans is already settled law.

The McDonald case simply decided in 2A applies against the state (IL in this case) and if it does then the decision in Heller applies against IL also.

Banning an entire class of weapons overwhelming chosen for lawful purpose fails constitutional muster.

handguns are responsible for 90% of violent gun crimes. Therefore, reasonable restriction on handguns as opposed to long guns would follow. Just as handguns are the preferred choice for protection of the home, they are also the preferred choice for stick ups and robbery. Looks like this is what the court is saying by keeping language in the ruling that reasonable restrictions are legal.

No single court case is the last word on the issue. So each answered question results in a dozen more questions. What is a "reasonable restriction on handguns"? It likely will take decades to find out as some challenges are accepted and other denied. That growing list of precedents will define that line in the sand between reasonable and infringing. Court rarely draw the exact line. However if x is Unconstitutional and y is Constitutional then you likely know the line is somewhere between x & y.

However one thing we know for sure is that a complete ban on handguns (which are overwhelming 99.99% used lawfully) is not Constitutional.

that is what the court has said.

violent felons, minors, etc. Which of course is where this ruling has the potential of taking us.

All rights are subject to restriction (age, limits, licensing, etc).

The repression of rights by due process (felons) has also been accepted.

By your "logic" since free travel has been found to be unemumerated right no felon could ever be put in prison or even arrested for a single second.

start with the restriction on non-violent felons and move forward. The floodgates are now open.

Thus this case changes nothing (which "only" extended federal protection of RKBA to states).

The "floodgate" have been open for years now. There was a Constitutional challenge for felons years ago shortly after Heller was decided and it failed. It is now precedent and will be used by courts to further reinforce that restriction.

The constant drone of anti-gunners about what will come next (blood in street, shootouts over parking spaces, skyrocketing crime rates, doubling of homicides, never comes true). Same old song but decade after decade it doesn't ever happen.

For those of us following guns laws become more progressive it started 30 years ago in FL and the doom and gloom scenarios continued every since, every single time laws & courts became more accepting of RKBA. It just never happens.