Hier das Urteil MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL zu den vielfach publizierten Schlagzeilen zum Urteil selbst: US Supreme Ct Urteil iS Waffenbesitz .
Lesenswert Judge Breyer’s Dissenting Opinion/ Ergebnis seiner Überlegungen – von wegen fundamentales, tief in der Geschichte verwurzeltes Recht auf bewaffneten Selbstschutz:In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amend-ment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, “fundamental.” No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment. Moreover, nothing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-centuryhistory shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense, as described in Heller, is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history or tradition” or is otherwise “fundamental.” Indeed, incorporating the right recognized in Heller may change the law in many of the 50 States. Read in the majority’s favor, the historical evidence is at mostambiguous. And, in the absence of any other support forits conclusion, ambiguous history cannot show that theFourteenth Amendment incorporates a private right of self-defense against the States.With respect, I dissent.
