# McDonald v. Chiocago



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

*McDonald v. Chicago*

For those of you interested in individual rights but have not heard the news, It seems that the Supreme court case of McDonald v Chicago has been determined with the Opinion at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Now that this is settled what are your thoughts on how this affects your lives, the assorted laws, torts, regulations that may have restricted your rights?
I am personally very encouraged by this ruling but question that the right to keep arms might yet be infringed by some complaint that the right to BEAR arms would be a separate mater and not resolved in this case. It seems that the whole of the Second Amendment has now been resolved but I have to wonder. I also wonder about whether it clarifies the 14th Amendment to any greater extent.
What do you think about this matter?


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

I'm happy with the ruling but I see a new batch of cases down the road to establish where the line is on reasonable restriction. That said, the "blood running in the streets" and "Wild West" predictions from the antis won't come to fruition, just like they never do, and we will go on about our lives generally unaffected.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I live in a mostly rural section of PA. We can legally own and purchase anything here. 
It is good news for my brothers in arms in more restrictive locales though.

Yes, I fear the court cases are just beginning. There is (or is pending) a lawsuit regarding the new restrictions in DC, and Chicago Mayor Daley has already announced plans to implement similar laws in Chicago.

Andy B.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

I thought this thread was about a well known hamburger chains suit against a South American country I had never heard of.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

David V said:


> I thought this thread was about a well known hamburger chains suit against a South American country I had never heard of.


Unfortunately my spell checker does not work here since the upgrade in forum software. Thus can understand your confusion of my spelling of Chicago sinc eI seldom proofread anything on forums.


----------



## chamjoe (Oct 26, 2009)

I see this ruling as less of a big deal than people are making it. OK so 2nd amend stands. California will not be repealing their more restrictive rules anytime soon. Aside from the super gun rights nuts, did anyone really think this country would have moved to "take" everyones guns IF the ruling had gone the other way? I like guns and own quite a few but seriously laughed right around the Obama election of everyone stockpiling to get all they can before the "government" takes them. 

I'm no lawyer but I feel they chose their words carefully so as not to get into the 14th amend debate.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

So this has nothing to do with tasteless fast-food in Illinois?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

MikeDT said:


> So this has nothing to do with tasteless fast-food in Illinois?


That depends. Were you planning to shoot your own lunch?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

The usual problem with the Supreme Court is that they seem to phrase an Opinion to always require more litigation. This is simply employment security for lawyers. In this situation the answer is clear but the court uses the old saying "The more you say the less it means" to good effect. Illinois and DC went to far but how far over the line did they go? We don't really know. California should be across the line but there is no way to tell.
As for me, I will go with my usual standard. My guns are just fine since no one has a standard for what might be wrong. Even with California law trying to outlaw details of weapons they fall short of proper guidance.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

My opinion on the Second Amendment remain thus: Just keep guns away from crazies and people who haven't taken a proper safety course/test. That doesn't mean anything will be perfect, but it helps.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Jovan said:


> My opinion on the Second Amendment remain thus: Just keep guns away from crazies and people who haven't taken a proper safety course/test. That doesn't mean anything will be perfect, but it helps.


I actually like the idea of a safety course for every kid in school, and a few moron adults that think it is just point and shoot. For those reading this I should point out that the NRA has a very good course and it is not nearly as expensive as shoothing your own foot off. Try it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> I actually like the idea of a safety course for every kid in school, and a few moron adults that think it is just point and shoot. For those reading this I should point out that the NRA has a very good course and it is not nearly as expensive as shoothing your own foot off. Try it.


Sorry, safety courses are only good if the State mandates them!!


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

David V said:


> I thought this thread was about a well known hamburger chains suit against a South American country I had never heard of.


Don't be deliberately obtuse. "Chiocago" is not a South American country. It's a river in Africa.

On a more serious note, with regard to mandatory gun safety courses -

I've not only taken classes (mostly voluntarily) in firearms use, I've taught them. (Have over the years picked up instructor's credentials from the NRA, the Arizona State Police, the Utah Dept. of Public Safety, and a few others.)

At least in my experience, those gun owners who are concerned about safety and responsibility seek out instruction on their own - there's no need to require them to do so by law. And those gun owners who attend a class solely because the law requires them to do so are unlikely to take seriously the instruction they've been forced to sit through.

Yeah, exceptions exist. Sure, exceptions always exist. But that's the impression I've gotten, based on a fair amount of experience as both instructor and instructee. And my impression seems supported by the fact that no jurisdiction which has mandated gun safety training among firearms owners has seen it yield a reduction in the rate of negligent firearms mishaps. Nor have places where mandatory training has been dropped seen the rate of negligent firearms injuries go up.

So I'm a huge supporter of firearms training. Absolutely. But not of mandatory training. Because I just don't have any reason to believe that mandatory training will result in a safety benefit. And requiring something which evidence suggests yields no benefit, is pretty much the definition of pointless annoyance, and unnecessary law.

Of course, if a training requirement is intended primarily to leave some citizens feeling safer (never mind that the feeling has little basis in fact), I suppose that could be termed a benefit. Same way that various regulations at the airport do little to improve public safety, but they presumably leave some folks feeling safer, so we're stuck with them. (Also, such pointless regulation shows the public that our rulers recognize a problem and are Doing Something. Doing something - anything, pointless or not - is the primary role of government, after all.) It's more about a "feeling" thing, than a "reality" thing.

More pragmatically, including a mandatory training requirement in a bill can sometimes provide lawmakers with sufficient political cover that they'll vote for CCW reform. You know, it lets them tell anti-gun voters, "I did support AB123, but only after it was toughened, so that anybody who wants a carry permit will have to pass a police approved course, designed to ensure that all guns are used safely." This won't cut it with voters who are strongly anti-gun, of course. But for voters with only a mild interest in restricting gun rights, it may be worth something.

Anyway, as for how McDonald v. Chicago affects my life - get back to me in 20 years, and I'll let you know. Because like so many other Sup. Ct. decisions, it's unlikely the full ramifications will make themselves known for at least the better part of a generation. Yeah, some decisions have immediate and significant effects, but most don't. This is likely a "don't." Instead, we'll see years of efforts to get around the holding, to undermine it via future cases, to interpret it into meaninglessness, etc.
-- 
Michael


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sorry, safety courses are only good if the State mandates them!!


That's funny!!!!!!!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Anyway, as for how McDonald v. Chicago affects my life - get back to me in 20 years"

I'll mark that on my calender. Thanks for your candid opinion. It is good to hear about the voluntary/mandatory issue. Personally, I can not see why anyone would want to stay ignorant of the tools they use but since some people don't read the instructions for their scroll saws I guess we have to take for granted the occasional srewup...but I hope it does not happen near me.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Michael: Decent points, but relying on people to train themselves when they could put other lives in danger still seems iffy to me. That's like relying on businesses to regulate their own toxic waste dumping.

Ever see _Pulp Fiction_? No better lesson of poor trigger discipline.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

MikeDT said:


> So this has nothing to do with tasteless fast-food in Illinois?


That's what I thought this thread was about.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Howard said:


> That's what I thought this thread was about.


Just to clarify this error, please look at the Acrobat document linked above. There is no picture of Ronald McDonald next to the Supreme Court Letterhead. That is reserved for SC Circuit Courts (with a picture of the Hamburgler on the far right)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Chicago based Bangers never did stop carrying, during the time the Mayor's 'emotion driven rant' was in effect. With the SC's recent ruling, at least the playing field is somewhat leveled for the law abiding members of the Chicago community...though, they are still out-gunned, to be sure!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> So this has nothing to do with tasteless fast-food in Illinois?





Howard said:


> That's what I thought this thread was about.


Maybe we should make a thread on Fast-food.....it might be more interesting.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Maybe we should make a thread on Fast-food.....it might be more interesting.


Without the Second Amendment you don't have a right to go out and check out the fast food. You would be eating gruel at home afraid to step out into the street.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> Without the Second Amendment you don't have a right to go out and check out the fast food. You would be eating gruel at home afraid to step out into the street.


You know I was just kidding....Right.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

ZachGranstrom said:


> You know I was just kidding....Right.


Yeah, I know but I have to throw that message into the conversation at every opportunity. Hopefully one day everyone will understand.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Michael: Decent points, but relying on people to train themselves when they could put other lives in danger still seems iffy to me. That's like relying on businesses to regulate their own toxic waste dumping.


Remind us of the Constitutional provision guaranteeing our right to create and dump toxic waste please.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Country Irish said:


> Yeah, I know but I have to throw that message into the conversation at every opportunity. Hopefully one day everyone will understand.


You're preaching to the choir. No one here has done anything but support the Second Amendment, myself included.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Maybe we should make a thread on Fast-food.....it might be more interesting.


What's the most Trad fast food?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

David V said:


> What's the most Trad fast food?


Clambake!!


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

chamjoe said:


> I see this ruling as less of a big deal than people are making it. OK so 2nd amend stands. California will not be repealing their more restrictive rules anytime soon. Aside from the super gun rights nuts, did anyone really think this country would have moved to "take" everyones guns IF the ruling had gone the other way? I like guns and own quite a few but seriously laughed right around the Obama election of everyone stockpiling to get all they can before the "government" takes them.
> 
> I'm no lawyer but I feel they chose their words carefully so as not to get into the 14th amend debate.


It's already happened. NYC required registration of all long guns, promising it would never be used for confiscation, then years later did exactly that.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Two things come to mind with this decision:
1) If you read all five opinions, you will have a rather clear example of "living constitution" (make it up) versus originalism.
2) Thomas' brilliant opinion on Slaughterhouse and "Privileges or Immunities" could be a mustard seed that leads to a clear repudiation of Slaughterhouse and returns us to an intellectually sound jurisprudence (Due Process is a tendentious cop-out).


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

David V said:


> What's the most Trad fast food?


Cheeseburgers?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Back on Topic*

City Council has just passed the form that handguns within the city will be allowed. Will be taking my firearms class next week. It sucks compared with much of the country, but miles ahead of how bad it was. Color me cautiously happy. :icon_smile:
https://newsblogs.chicagotribune.co...ouncil-passes-daley-gun-restrictions-450.html


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

beherethen said:


> City Council has just passed the form that handguns within the city will be allowed. Will be taking my firearms class next week. It sucks compared with much of the country, but miles ahead of how bad it was. Color me cautiously happy. :icon_smile:
> https://newsblogs.chicagotribune.co...ouncil-passes-daley-gun-restrictions-450.html


I really wish I could lead a round of applause but after reading the article cited, I think I should wait a little longer until some of your leadership join us on this planet. There is some strange logic behind this new restriction.
However have fun at the class and remember not to fight back if you are attacked in your garage.


----------

