Presser v. Illinois

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Presser v. Illinois
ArgueDateA = November 23
ArgueDateB = 24
ArgueYear = 1885
DecideDate = January 4
DecideYear = 1886
FullName = Herman Presser v. State of Illinois
USVol = 116
USPage = 252
Citation =
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = The Second Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
SCOTUS = 1882-1887
Majority = Woods
JoinMajority =
Concurrence =
JoinConcurrence =
Concurrence2 =
JoinConcurrence2 =
Concurrence/Dissent =
JoinConcurrence/Dissent =
Dissent =
JoinDissent =
Dissent2 =
JoinDissent2 =
LawsApplied =

"Presser v. Illinois", 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. "Presser" is one of only two post-Civil War 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court cases to address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the other one being "United States v. Cruikshank".

Background

In this 1886 case, Herman Presser was part of a citizen militia group, the " _de. Lehr und Wehr Verein" (Instruct and Defend Association), a group of armed ethnic German workers, associated with the Socialist Labor Party. The group had been formed to counter the armed private armies of companies in Chicago. Quote|The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10. Basically, Presser, Quote|in December, 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States. Presser claimed the law violated his rights under the Second Amendment.

In "Presser v. Illinois", the Supreme Court stated:

In "Presser", the Court reaffirmed the "Cruikshank" decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. "Cruikshank" and "Presser" are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:

The Court emphatically disposed of Presser's argument that there exists a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia independent of authorization by state or federal law:

The traditional reading of "Presser" is that it affirms the states' rights view articulated in "Cruikshank". Modern supporters of the individual rights view have challenged this claim, viewing the case as affirming a right to keep and bear arms as a necessary condition to have a universal militia. The conflict between these viewpoints was argued in court in 1982 in the case of "Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove", in which it was ruled:

ee also

*"United States v. Cruikshank", ussc|92|542|1875

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Halbrook |first=Stephen P. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1998 |month= |title=Right of Workers to Assemble and to Bear Arms: "Presser v. Illinois", One of the Last Holdouts against Application of the Bill of Rights to the States |journal=University of Detroit Mercy Law Review |volume=76 |issue= |pages=943–989 |id= |url=http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/presser.PDF |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./116/252/ Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)] (opinion full text).