McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations

[fightingquaker13]

And, pray tell, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, just how do you construe the words, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", as vague?

I agree with the decision. I wish it had been done under the P@I clause, but ultimately a win is a win. The vague part (not to me, but past Courts and scholars) lies in two questions. First it was preceeded by the "well regulated militia" clause. The antis argued that since it was there to provide for a militia, the right was collective, not individual and it protected the states NG. The other vague bit was whether it applied to the states or just the feds. Did it stop Congress or your local city council? My opinion on the matter is the same as yours, but there are arguments both ways. I will say that Eric's last vent is precisly on the money where when he went off on the politicication of the Court. If the justices were guided by judical philosophy you would expect to see some liberals  support it on individual liberties grounds and some conservatives oppose it on states rights grounds. As it is, you knew what the vote would be before the argument was heard.
FQ13

[MikeO]

The WSJ had two good articles on this. Having read the opinions, I agree w the WSJ take:

-The dissenting 4 made it clear as soon as they have a 5, Heller and McDonald are history, stare decisis be damned.

-Thomas's concuring opinion may have resurected the P&I clause. It took 20 yrs for "diversity" to make it's way from a concuring opinion to a majority opinion re affirmative action, we can hope the P&I clause does the same for gun rights.

It all depends on who picks the inevitable replacements for the 5?

If Chicago (and others) requires liability insurance, could indirectly boost NRA membership if owners join to get the insurance discount? Millions more buying insurance could lower the cost for the rest of us who are already buying it too?

[tt11758]

People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.

You can hardly argue with the effectiveness of Chicago's gun ban.  There is virtually NO violent crime in that city, as evidenced by the fact that two state legislators recently begged Illinois' Governor to send National Guard troops to patrol the city.

What the hell are these asshats smoking?!?