McDonald et al v City of Chicago [merged]

[ming]

A nice analysis of the forthcoming case to be heard March 2 can be found here:
SCOTUSblog Second Amendment drama: Act II

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[PastorPack]

Wow, that was very thorough. It will be an interesting couple of months waiting to see the the Court's decision on this.

[kansastom]

SCOTUS does NOT rule that the 2nd applies as against the individual States? Will there be an exodus from such cities as Chicago? From such states as Illinois and/or Wisconsin? U.S. v. Cruikshank would seem to be a "problem".....'......The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution......' Regardless of the outcome/ruling, it will be interesing, to say the least

[kansastom]

After re-reading this portion from Cruikshank, it would seem that the statement 'This is not a right granted by the Constitution' (the RKBA) is, technically correct. The RKBA predates the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution (2A) Protects the Pre-Existing Right. So, there is no "problem" with Cruikshank.

[retsupt99]

Interesting read, long but thorough...we'll know how the Supreme Court thinks shortly.

[Pro2A]

SCOTUS does NOT rule that the 2nd applies as against the individual States? Will there be an exodus from such cities as Chicago? From such states as Illinois and/or Wisconsin? U.S. v. Cruikshank would seem to be a "problem".....'......The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution......' Regardless of the outcome/ruling, it will be interesing, to say the least

Don't forget that most states have their own versions of the 2A in their respective constitutions. If it's ruled otherwise on the federal level, we can still fight it on a state level as more states then not are pro-2A.

[press1280]

After re-reading this portion from Cruikshank, it would seem that the statement 'This is not a right granted by the Constitution' (the RKBA) is, technically correct. The RKBA predates the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution (2A) Protects the Pre-Existing Right. So, there is no "problem" with Cruikshank.

Yes, that part is correct. Where they went wrong was Slaughterhouse, decided 3 years earlier. It said only rights created by the Federal Government were protected by the P or I clause of the 14th Amendment(right to navigable waterways, diplomatic protection abroad,exc.). Cruikshank simply followed Slaughterhouse's precedent.

Heller's footnote 23 mentions Cruikshank also said the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states...........

[oneshot]

Don't forget that most states have their own versions of the 2A in their respective constitutions. If it's ruled otherwise on the federal level, we can still fight it on a state level as more states then not are pro-2A.

I believe the Supreme Ct. will rule in our favor,
BUT if not, then they, (the federal government) will finally see, the dissention among the (States) people; and I fear they will ultimately feel their unpopularity looming ever closer than they ever could imagine

On a somewhat of a side note, have you seen the Canadian Government is beginning to backpedal on their national gun registration scheme. this may finally show that the anti gun movement is fast losing favorability in the world

Here is a link to this story, which indicates they will vote on if they will get rid of the registry and all the records

Free vote on gun law - Winnipeg Free Press

I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

[bruce21b]

for our brothers/sisters in places like Chicago that have been stripped of their rights to defend themselves:

Supreme Court to scrutinize state, local gun laws - KansasCity.com