Quote:
Originally Posted by
SwedeSteve 
| I hope they rule before June !! |
Don't hold your breath, Steve.
The Justices are very much aware, as they were in
Heller, that they are in an area of law that will have a massive impact on the civil rights of Americans. As samuel said, the potential to turn the gun laws of places like Chicago and New York City on their heads is very much on the table with this ruling. The best precedent they have to guide them is their own, and it's only a year old. There hasn't been enough time for a history of cases decided by
Heller to accumulate. They are going to approach this case with caution.
On the one hand, you have the Bad Guys (Chicago) arguing that municipalities have long enjoyed the ability to decide how far the phrase "shall not be infringed," clear as it is, applies to their jurisdictions. The precedents go back to the 1870s at least. Folks into SASS might recall that during the era of the great cattle drives, places like Dodge City and Kansas City established what were called 'deadlines,' borders around what we today would call adult entertainment districts. The purpose was to maintain order and keep violence under control.
Outside the deadline, you could carry whatever you wanted. But to cross the line and go have a good time, you had to check your shootin' iron in with the Sheriff or the Marshal, whatever the top cop was called at the time. People grumbled but they accepted it. The practice was never challenged in court at the time. The Bad Guys are arguing that this sort of custom should be allowed even though on its face it violates the Second Amendment. By extension, they believe the Constitution (read: the courts) has ceded the right to define infringement to the cities.
The Good Guys (Gura and the NRA) are arguing that the Second Amendment is the law of the land everywhere. They don't disagree that states and cities haven't the right to regulate who gets to carry a gun - they can't, what with
Heller and things like the NICS check requirements - but they
are saying the cities (and by extension, the states) cannot just up and say, "You can't own a gun and carry it inside and outside your home; and you can only have certain kinds of guns; and only under certain conditions."
As I've said before, on the face of it
McDonald vs Chicago is a loser going in for the anti-gunners. We do have the precedent of
DC vs Heller, and of Federal laws and legal precedents requiring that various Constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights be incorporated into all the states of the Union via the Fourteenth Amendment. But after the way the lawyers on
both sides got bloodied up by the Justices during the oral arguments....
I just don't know which way the Supremes are going to jump this time. I really don't.
