Big question Just who does the mayor of chicago think he is going to appeal to?? Either me or him is really stupid because i do not think there is an appeal when SCOTUS renders a decision.
Yup,its a done deal. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot saying things like "We are not going to just roll over" and crafting a ordinance that requires you to get a permit to have a gun in the city,when the same ordinance PREVENTS anyone from opening up a training facility to give people the training the ordinance requires to get that permit. The similarity to the old "Jim Crowe laws" is striking in that the courts held that something was illegal and constitutionally protected,so laws were passed to try to create the same effect,while not outright banning it. I don't think the similarity will be lost on the Supreme Court justices either. I think we can expect the next case,and many more like it to start to nail down where the limits are. I think this is a very good thing. It starts us on the way to reversing the "gun phobia" that the gun control advocates have been creating over the last century.
Remember,the whole point of a "balance" is that we have a right to have arms,but also the government (state,local and federal) has a right and duty to ensure order and safety. As the laws are relaxed bit by bit and the streets don't "run red with blood" it will become more and more obvious that the laws don't do what they claim and it will be harder to justify the infringement of our rights for the sake of safety and order. As an example,in California,or Chicago,they would argue that its absurd to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons because it would lead to mass lawlessness and tens of thousands of shootings. However,in many states they DO allow people to carry guns and such things dont happen.
What I expect over the next few years is that these "Jim Crowe style" ordinances,trying to circumvent the constitution will fall. Laws that are restrictive but not clearly designed to create a defacto ban will replace them. I expect that handgun permits will be required to be issued (where they are required) without onerous procedures or requirements to any law abiding citizen. There may be a few skirmishes over what "onerous" means but it will be worked out.
The next big fight will be about the meaning of "bear arms". As more and more of the country goes "shall carry" this will become the big issue for the few holdouts. National reciprocity may also be addressed either at the legislative or judicial level.
I know many people are dissapointed that there was not a wholesale rejection of all gun control,but that was not a realistic expectation. What has happened is that the court has affirmed your that we have a right to own firearms. Over the next few years,the scope of that right will be hammered out. Once that is done,that's it. It will set the basic level. Clearly handguns are included,as that's what these were about. Its reasonable to expect everything we consider "sporting rifles" to be as well. The assault weapons bans may be eased or overturned,especially if the courts can be convinced of how arbitrary the bans are. (A weapon with a grenade launcher,a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug can be an assault weapon,when the same weapon without those might not meet the criteria,regardless of the fact that the grenade itself is regulated under the NFA and not typically available,and the other features are not particularly suitable for someone committing a crime anyway.) If they can be convinced that its just a way to arbitrarily ban a large number of weapons that might be a win too. On top of that,the decision affirms the right to have them for self defense. In fact, that opens a whole can of worms. Any weapons that have legitimate self defense applications,that is,weapons that are PARTICULARLY dangerous and capable of inflicting great bodily harm,would seem to be protected. After all,if it cant kill an attacker,its not very good for self defense. These are interesting times indeed.
For all those that say that Heller and now McDonald was not a win,I dont see how they can think that. A few years ago it was illegal to own a handgun in DC,and a few weeks ago it was in Chicago. Now,although you have to jump through some crazy hoops,you can. It could be better, bit its a win any way you look at it. (unless your the mayor of Chicago.)
(It should be noted,that it was pretty well obvious that the supreme court would rule as it did. If you look at the counter argument,about if it is "possible to imagine ANY civilized society" that does not recognize the right,then the right should not be given,by that same logic,absolutely every single right we have could be overturned that way. Thats a door that it was not likely for a majority of justices to open.
