So, until proven unconstitutional, is the possession of handguns in Chicago still illegal?

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/30/supreme-court-to-hear-mcdonald-v-chicago/

Pardon me for living in the woods 5 days a week, but what are you talking about?

Posts, especially those that begin threads, need content dang it! :p

Yeah, Google News has nothing.

[Edit: Err I put McDonalds in nm.]

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/30/supreme-court-to-hear-mcdonald-v-chicago/

"Tank, you've got 10 seconds to beat it before I add you to the list of NSF casualties."

It's a real case, but I've only heard about it so far from rabidly pro-gun sources, so it's possibly not as important as they're making it out to be. From what I gather, it's about whether the individual right to own firearms can be enforced against state (and by extension, municipal) governments. A challenge like this was pretty much inevitable after the decision in D.C. v. Heller that there was an individual right to own firearms.

Application of the provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states is not as easy or as obvious as you'd probably think. That's about all I've got time to say about it tonight.

Oh, and yes, the Chicago handgun ban is still effective until and unless the Supreme Court strikes it down.

uhh, cant they still own a differant kind of firearm, if so, doesnt that technicaly mean they still have the right to bear arms, just only certain types. (not like handguns would be much use against an oppressive government's death squads anyway)

From first glance, I thought this would be about the fast food restaurant, McDonald's.

I don't really like this argument, because if we accept it I'm not sure where it ends. Today we eliminate handguns, tomorrow maybe it's another class of weapons... but as long as someone can bear some kind of arms, the 2nd Amendment isn't being infringed? Even when we get down to the point where the only weapons anyone is legally allowed to carry are flintlock muskets because we've prohibited everything else?

(Note: Plenty of people have argued that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to carry flintlock muskets, but they've done so from the perspective that that was the original historical purpose of the amendment. I still think it's kind of a silly argument.)

actually in the event that it becomes necessary to overthrow a government a civilian population would probably want to avoid engaging said death squads anyways and hand guns may prove more imperative for close discrete conflicts.

ugh, again with the guns.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

You really think your avg. joe is going to last more than a minute in a firefight against a well trained soldier?

I always hate to get into these far-fetched hypotheticals, but you do realize that a large portion of americans are extremely experienced snipers with regionally specific equipment and a lifetime of knowledge of local terrain and conditions, right?