Hand-Down Day

On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued an historic opinion holding that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution is incorporated to the States. Below is a brief synopsis of the opinion.

McDonald v. Chicago
561 US ___ (2010)

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, as did Justice Breyer, who was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotamayor.

In 2008, the Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that D.C.'s gun ban violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Because D.C. was a federal district, the Court did not answer the question  whether the individual States were bound by the Second Amendment.

Originally, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) only applied to the federal government. Following the Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court began to incorporate several provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the past century, most of the Bill of Rights amendments were incorporated, and thus applied to the states. However, the Court had never decided whether the Second Amendment applied to the states.

After the decision in Heller, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to challenge gun prohibitions in both Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois. The Chicago ordinance prohibited people from possessing firearms without a permit. The Oak Park law was more restrictive, and flat-out banned the possession of handguns. The named plaintiff, Otis McDonald, is a community activist in his late seventies who lives in a high-crime neighborhood, and has received several death threats from drug dealers and gangs due to his work to clean up his neighborhood. He and the other plaintiffs wish to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.

In the federal district court, the cities argued that the laws are necessary for public safety reasons. The district court held that the bans do not violate the Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed, and said that the Second Amendment was not incorporated to the states.

The Plaintiffs raised two arguments to the Supreme Court; 1) that a ban on firearms violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and 2) that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The cities argued that the provisions of the Bill of Rights only apply to the States if that right is an "indispensable attribute of any civilized legal system," and that some civilized countries can and do regulate firearm possession.

The Court declined to follow the Plaintiffs' argument on the Privileges or Immunities Clause because the Fourteenth Amendment has been the traditional route to determine whether a right should be applied to the states. Justice Alito identified the main question as whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms is fundamental to our (the United States) scheme of ordered liberty."

The Court noted that self-defense is a basic right, and that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right. The Court also explained that the right of self-defense is deeply rooted in English and colonial tradition. In answering his question, Justice Alito said that Yes, the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and it is incorporated to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court also noted that its ruling does not affect regulatory measures like prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, prohibiting firearms in sensitive areas like schools, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns.

Breyer's dissent argued that there is no consensus among scholars that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, that the right does not protect minorities or those neglected by the political process, that incorporation of the Second Amendment would intrude on an important area of state concern, and that judges would be forced to answer questions outside of their expertise. Justice Alito addressed and countered all of Justice Breyer's points.

In the wake of this ruling, States and municipalities cannot make laws that infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution because the Second Amendment is officially incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bryan W. Wolford
Attorney At Law

Comments (2)     

A flat fee, also known as a fixed fee, for legal services is an up-front figure quoted to the client for all of the legal work to be done. Flat fees are gaining in popularity in recent years among small and medium sized firms, and are fast becoming the main alternative to the billable hour. In contrast to a flat fee, the billable hour is a method of calculating legal fees based on the hours worked by the attorney, usually rounded to the tenth hour, multiplied by the attorney's stated hourly rate.

Many clients prefer a flat fee to the billable hour because it provides them with a sense of predictability for the costs of legal services. For the criminal law client, a flat fee agreement typically covers the attorney's services from indictment to plea negotiations to trial, if necessary. It allows the client to decide whether or not to go trial based on what is right and just, rather than what they can afford. Likewise, family law clients prefer to know up front how much it will cost them to resolve their issue, even if it means going to trial.

A flat fee agreement also puts the risk of a complicated case on the attorney. Because the attorney sets his flat fee, it is his responsibility to accurately evaluate each client's case and estimate the complexity of the case and the amount of work that will likely be required. For the client paying by the hour, any work beyond the attorney's estimate is billed to the client. For clients paying a flat fee, it is the attorney who shoulders the burden. For this reason, many attorneys offer hybrid flat fees, where the client pays a flat fee for legal services up to a stated number of hours, and then pays an hourly fee for all additional hours. This type of hybrid fee balances the risk of a complicated case more evenly between the client and attorney.

Many costs and expenses are often not included in a flat fee, and are therefore charged to the client. Such expenses include court filing fees and costs, administrative costs, and costs associated with trial like depositions and expert witness fees. Attorneys clearly list what costs are and are not covered by the flat fee in their fee agreements with the client.

At The Law Offices of Bryan W. Wolford, we prefer the flat fee as our method of billing. We currently quote flat fees for all of our family law cases, criminal law cases, traffic tickets, wills and trusts, and for many of our civil cases like landlord/tenant law. We think that the flat fee is the superior method of billing legal services as it clearly informs the client of what they can expect to pay to resolve their legal issues. However, we always give the client the option of selecting hourly billing.

For more information about having your legal issues resolved for a flat fee, please contact our office to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

Bryan W. Wolford

Attorney At Law

Comments (0)     

On May 31, 1917, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became certified by the Secretary of State. 36 of the 48 states in the Union ratified the amendment, which mandated that the two Senators from each state were to be elected by the people of the state rather than the state legislature. 

Comments (0)     

Comments (0)     

Please join me on Saturday May 15 at the Village Green Shopping Center in California for the California City Fire Department's annual barbecue. This year, we will feature a slab of pork ribs for $20; boneless tenderized pork steak sandwiches for $4; and our very own firehouse pulled pork sandwich for $4.

Don't miss this opportunity to support your local firefighters and first responders, and enjoy slow smoked, delicious meat. We will be serving from 10am until we run out of meat.

Comments (0)