Stop at McDonald

Gun Control, Judicial Restraint, and McDonald v. Chicago

made easy

Beauties 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.