In this article, Professor Richard L. Aynes, who was cited for his research by the majority in McDonald, delivers his critique on the opinion, the concurrence, and the dissent. Professor Aynes provides an in-depth analysis of Justice Thomas’ concurrence, which asserts the proper vehicle for incorporation to be the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, as opposed to the traditional method employed by the court – the Due Process Clause. With contemporary legal scholarship in agreement with Justice Thomas, Professor Aynes asserts that just as the Privileges and Immunities Clause commanded the support of a ratifying nation, “it will yet command a majority of the Supreme Court.” Examining the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, Professor Aynes posits that that because their reasoning is devoid of any historical analysis of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, the dissenters’ conclusion is fundamentally flawed. Lastly, Professor Aynes hypothesizes what McDonald will mean for the future of Second Amendment application against the states.
Aynes, Richard L.
"McDonald v. Chicago, Self-Defense, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Future,"
ConLawNOW: Vol. 2
, Article 6.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/conlawnow/vol2/iss1/6