Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A common question to both sides... [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Are you saying you disagree with Stevens, now? LOL
[div class='excerpt']Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, concluded in Parts III, IV, and VI:
1. It was not improper for the state courts to conclude that the ordinance, which covers a significant amount of activity in addition to the intimidating conduct that is its factual predicate, is invalid on its face.
....
It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement, see Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395, and infringes on constitutionally protected rights, see id., at 391. Pp. 712.
...
Justice Kennedy concluded that, as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Chicago ordinance unconstitutionally reaches a broad range of innocent conduct, and, therefore, is not necessarily saved by the requirement that the citizen disobey a dispersal order before there is a violation. Although it can be assumed that disobeying some police commands will subject a citizen to prosecution whether or not the citizen knows why the order is given, it does not follow that any unexplained police order must be obeyed without notice of its lawfulness.
...
Justice Breyer concluded that the ordinance violates the Constitution because it delegates too much discretion to the police, and it is not saved by its limitations requiring that the police reasonably believe that the person ordered to disperse (or someone accompanying him) is a gang member, and that he remain in the public place with no apparent purpose.
I know that it must chap your ass that the ACLU (among others) see these kinds of laws as unconstitutional infringements.
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/what_is_a_gang_injunction.shtml