MacDonald v Chicago - Open Thread

[rugersol]

Yeah!!!

We win!!!

Handguns now legal in Chicago!!!

Here's the first to make the "approved" list!

[plblark]

well... remanded to 7th to send the City the bad news. Then it's up to the city to see how over the top difficult they can make it without making it outright illegal...

[DeanC]

This makes sense: lull us to sleep with victories at SCOTUS, while the "Robert's Reasonable Restrictions Clause" stabs us in the back.

Today America and civil rights won a huge victory … which will cause us much grief in the coming years. Celebrate tonight, then resume loading your intellectual ammo tomorrow.

As a marketing strategist by trade, my job is to anticipate what competitors will do. Now that banning certain types of guns (namely handguns) is no longer possible, the opposition will change their near-term goals and strategy. Here are the issues I believe we must anticipate and prepare to defend against.

Registration and licensing: Pro-gun forces have resisted national registration and licensing because it would lead to confiscation. The gun control industry will now make the argument that since banning is no longer an option, registration is not a threat.

However, this only applies to handguns … for the moment. Banning guns remains an option for “assault weapons”, .50 caliber, machineguns and more. Thus registration remains a threat. Additionally, this court decision is only as strong as future packed courts. Registered guns today become confiscated guns tomorrow if a future court reverses their opinion (and as summarized in my ancient copy of Constitutional law and Politics, Volume One, the court routinely reverses itself).

NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS COURT OVERTURNED
Marshall Court (1801-1836) 3
Taney Court (1836-1864) 4
Chase Court (1864-1873) 4
Waite Court (1874-1888) 13
Fuller Court (1888-1910) 4
White Court (1910-1921) 5
Taft Court (1921-1930) 6
Hughes Court (1930-1941) 21
Stone Court (1941-1946) 15
Vinson Court (1946-1953) 13
Warren Court (1953-1969) 45
Burger Court (1969-1986) 52
Rehnquist Court (1986- ) 34
Total 219

Hamstringing: With banning off the table, the next best way to eliminate private ownership is to make it insanely difficult to obtain a firearm. Here in California moves are being made at the local level to make buying ammo difficult. In New York and D.C. the hurdles one must jump before obtaining a handgun are huge.

Expect the gun control industry to push laws at all levels to erect new roadblocks and test them in court. Each law that adds time and duties before acquiring a gun delays the exercise of your right, and as we chanted in the civil rights era, a right delayed is a right denied. There is no “reasonable regulation” of a civil right.

Banning non-handguns: The gun control industry was effective in inventing the concept of “assault weapons” and thus banning many sporting rifles. Expect any firearm not specifically suited for self defense to become a banning target. We know that every firearm is protected by the Second Amendment. We know that every firearm has some self-defense or militia purpose. But the gun control industry knows how to confuse the public. Your dove gun may be reclassified as an “assault weapon” in the next round of legislation.

Ammo: In California some cities have tried to make ammo sales impossible. Guns without ammo are merely clubs, so the gun control industry will target ammo. Expect more bullet tax, registration/finger printing, and display restrictions if not an outright push to limit the amount of ammo you can buy (imagine a 50-round a month limit).

Friends, we can smile at today’s victory. But the gun control industry has been in business for over a hundred years. They have money, they have manpower, they have friends in the White House and they have an agenda. They are not defeated and they will not rest. Stay alert, stay prepared, and keep your power dry.
Yours in Liberty
Guy Smith

[bstrawse]

Josh Sugarmann from VPC spews some crap over at HuffPO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-suga ... 27688.html

b

[1911fan]

Only Clarence Thomasgot it right. P or I is the only legitimate incorporation.

[rthib]

Count me as Unhappy on this one.
Correct result, wrong reason.

2nd Amendment didn't need 14th.

[jgalt]

Count me as Unhappy on this one.
Correct result, wrong reason.

2nd Amendment didn't need 14th.

Please do explain your reasoning. You are 100% wrong, so I'm curious as to what you are thinking...

[bstrawse]

Count me as Unhappy on this one.
Correct result, wrong reason.

2nd Amendment didn't need 14th.

The Bill of Rights, as written, applied only to federal government / district of columbia. They have to be incorporated via either a constitutional clause, none of them stand alone... in this case, via the 14th.
b

[mrokern]

Count me as Unhappy on this one.
Correct result, wrong reason.

2nd Amendment didn't need 14th.

I'm going to just nip this one in the bud.

In the late 1700s / much of the 1800s, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Look at Barron v. Baltimore.

It took the abolition of slavery and the Civil War to bring about what are termed the "reconstruction amendments", including the 14th. The purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to all freemen.

-Mark

[hammAR]

What gets me is that we have 4 un-American justices on the court.

And they are the usually suspects.

I do like how the Supreme court used the justification of post civil war law that said that if blacks can't own guns then they are not really free. Can't wait to hear the liberals cry about this.

Chicago is nearly half black, they are the largest group in the city. In fact in every city with a large black population that is where the toughest gun laws are found. You don't find gun grabbing laws in majority white cities and towns. But once a town reaches 20/30% black then out come the Liberals crying for gun restrictions.

But they don't see anything racist about that at all.........................

[bstrawse]

What gets me is that we have 4 un-American justices on the court.

And they are the usually suspects.

I do like how the Supreme court used the justification of post civil war law that said that if blacks can't own guns then they are not really free. Can't wait to hear the liberals cry about this.

Chicago is nearly half black, they are the largest group in the city. In fact in every city with a large black population that is where the toughest gun laws are found. You don't find gun grabbing laws in majority white cities and towns. But once a town reaches 20/30% black then out come the Liberals crying for gun restrictions.

But they don't see anything racist about that at all.........................

I wouldn't call them un-american because they take a different view of the 2nd amendment than we do - they're just.... wrong
b

[whiteox]

+1

[1911fan]

If you come up with something other than "Shall no be infringed" it is un-American. America IS the Constitution.

[bstrawse]

Decent analysis of the impact of the MacDonald case over at the Volokh Conspiracy...

http://volokh.com/2010/06/28/predicting ... gle+Reader

[mrokern]

What gets me is that we have 4 un-American justices on the court.

And they are the usually suspects.

I do like how the Supreme court used the justification of post civil war law that said that if blacks can't own guns then they are not really free. Can't wait to hear the liberals cry about this.

Chicago is nearly half black, they are the largest group in the city. In fact in every city with a large black population that is where the toughest gun laws are found. You don't find gun grabbing laws in majority white cities and towns. But once a town reaches 20/30% black then out come the Liberals crying for gun restrictions.

But they don't see anything racist about that at all.........................

You're right, in that the origins of gun control are EXTREMELY racist. It was all about keeping guns out of the hands of the scary black men, lest they defend themselves against the kind and gentle white men who were trying to lynch them.