Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Stop at McDonald

Gun Control, Judicial Restraint,
and McDonald v. Chicago

made easy

McDonald v. Chicago seemed like a no-brainer.  What gave me pause is this [excerpted from Justices arm themselves with activism in Chicago gun ban case] ...  
The only questions are: Which legal theory will the pro-gun majority use to arrive at the outcome it desires ....

Justice Stephen Breyer needled the majority about its rather situational view of federalism when it comes to "incorporating" the Second Amendment to make it binding on states rather than just the federal government. "Without incorporation, it's decided by state legislatures," he said. "With, it's decided by federal judges."

You see the dilemma. Reason magazine [Gun Control, Judicial Restraint,and McDonald v. Chicago] does a yeomanly job of backgrounding.  

George Will argues that ... Now contrast that with National Journal’s Stuart Taylor Jr., who....

But, of all the things I've read on McDonald, this coffee klatch on Of Arms & The Law blog has been the most informative,  and enjoyable to read. 

If Thomas had asked a question, the world would have exploded.

That's no dig on Thomas, just pointing out that he asks questions about as often as the Earth explodes.

Posted by: Ed at March 3, 2010 09:36 AM

In my dreams, Thomas' question is: "Counsel, if we were to affirm the case below, what would be the... unintended consequences of that?

Posted by: Davidwhitewolf at March 3, 2010 11:27 AM

 After all of this, I'll  fall back on our family's adage, "There is no right way to do the wrong thing." Abridging the very clearly written  Second Amendment is wrong.  End of story. We'll hope the [expected] decision for McDonald  is expertly crafted, thwarting the bad guys from corrupting, and using it to justify more penumbra emanating clap-trap. But, if not, we'll have the promise of the Second Amendment to fall back on, so win-win.


Anonymous said...

those Walther p99's are great looking guns

Anonymous said...

As I've commented before, If you want to watch a liberal's head explode, ask him (or her/it) about abortion rights and then about gun control. When they are done, juxtapose the arguments. If the Supremes rule that the bill of rights only restricts the FEDERAL government, then the states will be able to outlaw abortion. This will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

If the Second doesn't apply then neither do any of the others. The whole Bill of Rights is meaningless. You have no protection against unreasonable search, your religion may be banned, you speech restricted, etc. It's just that simple.


WV: nonspin. Seriously.

Gayle Miller said...

Nothing stops these anti-Republic pinheads from their attempts to rewrite American history and our Constitution. If they cannot manage to ignore it, they try to subvert it. Our so-called President doesn't even recognize the nature of the three co-equal branches of the government and still thinks he can issue fiats to the Supreme and the Congress. What a dumb shit he is!

Ride Fast said...

In my fantasy the Supremes will rule for incorporation of the Bill of Rights under "substantive due process" and "privileges and immunities".

Then not only will we have a win-win, but that washingtonpost.com hacks head will explode.

Alear said...

Heya Tim,

You make a very good point in re abortion and gun control and MFCS liberals, and thank you. I'm gonna be thinking about it and may just use it.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Tim puts his finger on the controversy. It appears however that the court will go with McDonald [as I think it should in this direct challenge to Bill of Rights].

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.