...ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; the second amendment applies to state and local governments.

I fully agree with this decision, but I am interested to see what results from it. Could this also eventually affect states with laws against open carry and/or may issue CCW licenses? Because currently in Oklahoma you cannot open carry and must get a license to conceal, though it IS a shall issue state.

I think it's the same here in Texas, license to conceal. The key is, they can restrict gun ownership, but can't ban it. It just boils down to how bad you want a gun, and how much trouble you want to go through to legally own one.

I'm withholding judgment until I read the opinion. Once I find it, I'll link to it for anyone else who's interesting.

Edit: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-062810-scotus-chicago-gun-ban,0,104815.htmlpage]Here.

It's 214 pages. Jesus H.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Yep, four separate opinions, including a "majority" opinion in which some sections only got four votes, a concurrence from Thomas (which I expect will be the most interesting part), and dissents from Stevens and Breyer. I may just have to skim this one.

Note that the length of McDonald and the fact that it was released only hours ago will not prevent hostile senators from asking Elena Kagan about the decision today.

Thanks for linking that, I'm interested to read the dissenting opinions...when I have time.

They aren't asking her questions today.

You're right, I didn't catch on to that until after my post.

I should put this in my signature:

Michael MacFarlane in response to Wookie06: "You're right..."

I've made it through the plurality and the Scalia concurrence (which I didn't notice existed at first), and it's my opinion so far that case was probably decided correctly based on prior case law. I still prefer Justice Thomas's approach because I think it's based on a better reading of the 14th Amendment. (I haven't read his very long concurrence yet, but I'm familiar with the argument because it's a big part of what made this case so interesting. More on this maybe once I get there.)

I should point out that this decision on its own does not invalidate the Chicago handgun ban. The case has been sent back to the Seventh Circuit (which originally held that the 2nd Amendment did not) apply to the states) for reconsideration. But because the Chicago ban is very similar to the D.C. law that was deemed unconstitutional in Heller, and the scope of the 2nd Amendment right is the same as applied to states as against the federal government, the Seventh Circuit will almost certainly strike down the law on rehearing.

Unfortunately this decision, like Heller, leaves undecided what the actual scope of the right to bear arms is, or what standard of scrutiny will be applied to future regulation of firearms. In other words, it gives precious little guidance to lower courts that will have to decide cases involving something short of a full ban on handguns.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Unbelievable. I'm not sure what this "mayor" and his posse think they're really accomplishing here besides doing everything they can to wrap an iron first around their citizens (meigs field?), but I'm sure as hell glad I don't live there.

At least in most California cities we have the "awesome weather" excuse for not fleeing ludicrous politics

Wow, talk about ridiculous.

That's bull****.

Well, that'll be short-lived.

I can understand the one-per-month rule, but being allowed to only own one functional handgun at a time? That's absurd!

It seems to me that we can eliminate much of the controversy & increase safety through education by merely re-establishing a real militia in every state & making it mandatory for at least one member of every household to join & undergo firearms training. Maybe that's the beer talking but it sure sounds good to me right now.

I would support it. It would be a step back to when how a man behaved mattered, not just whether or not the cops were looking his way.

Hell, that sounds alright to me.

I would be all for it.

Pass. I'm not much interested in joining a militia or owning a firearm.

It's a good idea in theory, but sorry, I don't think forcing people into a militia and forcing them to train with firearms is right. That's exactly the mentality we need to get AWAY from.

If someone is opposed to training w/ a firearm to defend their state &/or country then they could serve on a trial &/or grand jury like in the old days. I personally think that some form of service should be mandatory (6-12 months) even if it doesn't involve training w/ a firearm. However, I don't think that we should allow anyone that hasn't had this type of training to own anything more than a hunting rifle.

Wait, wait, you guys have always been against gun control because it restricts your freedoms. Now you are suggesting that you restrict others' freedoms by FORCING them to do something? You need to take a step back and get some perspective. That's ****ing absurd.

Um, Mentat's a big lefty and he was drunk. Can't really speak for "conservatives" like JM, though.

I'm not personally against "gun control". Governments force citizens to do a great number of things already. It seems to be working just fine for Switzerland. We can make it mandatory for everyone to join their local militia when they're 18. They can serve for 6-12 months & after they're done they can choose to go on to college or attempt to become professional soldiers. Switzerland appears to find 20% of the population to be unfit for duty. We could take those people, the pacifists & anyone else that's not interested in contributing to the defense of their state &/or country & make them jurors (this will allow them to serve in another way). I really think that a combination of how the U.S. used to do things & how Switzerland currently does things is the way to go. I don't like the idea of a mandatory National Guard because it's really just a component of the Army. This would resolve many of the issues that liberals have (e.g: whether or not the "right to bare arms" is an individual right & whether or not the people that are carrying around weapons have any sort of training). I don't really see this as an issue of "freedom" because it's not oppressive (if anything it's actually empowering people). I'm not talking about sending people to Afghanistan (that's for those that wish to go on & become professional soldiers).

Empowering? Your definition of "empowering" is not the same as everyone else's.

Yes, we can't live in perfect freedom because the world isn't a perfect place. But using that as an excuse for compulsory action that takes a significant amount of time from someone's life is absurd.

Exactly. P.S. Mentat, just because a government does something and it "works" doesn't mean it's right. Shall we play the "list terrible governments that 'worked' for a period of time" game?

My definition of "empowering" is exactly the same as everyone else's (assuming they're going by the dictionary definition). A state or federal government would be equipping its citizens w/ the training that's necessary to properly defend themselves, their families & their state &/or country. It would be awesome having an entire population of people that's equipped to deal w/ various circumstances. Imagine a world where everyone knows CPR, where all of your neighbors know how to properly use, maintain & store firearms, where everyone is on the same page in times of disaster (artificial or natural). I don't consider 6-12 months to be significant at all. By the time you enter said training you would've already spent 12 or 13 years being educated/trained by your government anyways. What's 6-12 more months? If you plan to become a professional soldier or a member of law enforcement this type of training would probably benefit you.


I fail to see how you can draw the conclusion that I think this by what I said. However, in the case of Switzerland, I certainly don't think it's "wrong".

It's a good idea in theory, but sorry, I don't think forcing people into a DMV and forcing them to train with cars is right. That's exactly the mentality we need to get AWAY from.

A mechanical device that requires skill to operate and is designed to hurl metal at lethal velocities and if not used competently or respectfully may result in accidental or deliberate injury or death. Clearly it is the utmost of ******ry to demand that people understand how to use such a machine before they are allowed to purchase it.

Jon, no one forces you to get a car, no one forces you to learn how to drive one, and no one forces you into a mandatory car-driving club that meets once a month. If you don't think a car is necessary, or you don't like cars, or you're scared of cars, then you can not buy one, and not know how to drive one.

No one forces you to get a car? You're from New England, I take it.

I'll come make my standard gun control thread post...

Guns are not the problem. People are.

There are certain parts of this country & many other countries where driving a car is the only means of transportation. I'm personally fortunate enough to have access to a car & if I wanted to work at McDonalds or Cracker Barrel I could certainly make it there by foot or by bicycle. However, my parents live in the country surrounded by farms. They're miles & miles from the nearest city, there's no public transportation available & they're getting older so they won't be riding a bicycle for hours & hours to go to the grocery store. I could make the claim that people like this have no business living outside of a city that provides transportation but then I'd be limiting their freedom to live where they like.

And also the fact that cities suck.

Once the initial training was over there would be no meetings. This isn't the national guard.

It's a great idea with many benefits to society. But it wouldn't work. Part of the reason this sort of thing works in places like Switzerland and Greece (and Israel has cumpolsury service too, doesn't it?) is because they are very small.

I agree for the most part. I think that something like this could work here but we'd have to restructure a lot of things to suit it & that's very unlikely to happen. I suppose that I just wish that things were this way. Wish in one hand...

You don't have to tell me that cars are necessary for a lot of people. You're missing the point though...they aren't legally required for every household in the nation.

Amazing, so Mentat was somewhat serious. Not surprising, though. The idea of compelled national service is a left wing idea. Hilarious because had George W. Bush proposed mandatory government service he would have been pilloried by the left.