The rulling should be 9-0, but a 5-4 decision is would be a great win.

Though I do see this going our way if for no other reason than gun control doesn't work, my bigger issue is whether we still have a viable country after the putzes we have in power don't flush us it down the drain. If they successfully bankrupt our country will our constitution still hold up? We may really need our guns in the future if we don't wake up and turn the tide back now.

Vic

I would like to see the Court rule that local government has no authority to enact controls more restrictive than the state AND narrowly define the "reasonable" restrictions that a state can enact--but that isn't likely to happen. This should, however, be a significant victory for gun rights--a major step in the right direction. If the Court rules that the 2nd applies to the states and their political subdivisions on the same basis that it applies to the federal government, it will be a huge victory.

I'm with Beekeeper. Apparently, the government's definition of "reasonable" and the average gun owner's definition of "reasonable" are two completely different things...

With regard to restrictions, it does not seem likely that the Court will venture beyond the scope of its ruling in the Heller case. If the decision goes our way, the most we can reasonably hope for is to have the 2nd Amendment declared binding on the states and their political subdivisions, with the question of reasonableness of restrictions left to future courts to determine.
Which is okay. That would be a BIG win for us.

Thanks Mr Petzal, I thought F&S was avoiding this issue. Glad your on top of it!

Not being a legal scholar, I don't understand why there's even deemed to be a legitimate debate. The emphasis would be on legitimate. If an individual's rights are guaranteed only in federal enclaves such as DC, the Bill of Rights isn't a fact of life for the overwhelmingly vast majority of us. No one would even entertain the arguement that a state or municipality has a right to limit suffrage or free speech. We even have an ammendment that clarifies that. I believe that a law which attempts to nullify the free speech of those who want to nullify the 2nd ammendment has just as much merit as a law which nullifies the 2nd itself, which is absolutely none. Gun owners don't choose to exercise the 2nd to limit the 1st. I'd appreciate it if that intelligent and respectful restraint would be reciprocated.

To whom don't get it

What part of,

"There is no Government entity responsible for your personal safety"

You just don't understand!

If his appointment to the court is the deciding vote against the 2nd Amendment, then put a fork in Obama Bin Lyin, he'll be through in 2012. The doomsday scenario for the one termer could very well be to lock us into the U.N. anti- small arms sale and ownership international treaty.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
-Patrick Henry, from “Against the Federal Constitution”, 1788-Jun-5

They seem a little fuzzy on that "...shall not be infringed" thing.

The fact that this issue is only coming up now shows that in general this country, or at least those in Washington DC, have not viewed the second amendment on the same level of importance as the rest of the Bill of Rights. All the rest of our constitutional rights have long been enforced upon the states through the due process clause. However, I am worried that an unintended consequence to a favorable ruling will be a shift in regulatory power from the states to the feds. Personally, I would rather have the idiots in my own state, who are not professional politicians, making gun regulations than the idiots in DC who are professionals.

I gotta thought; let's all lay down our arms. Sing spirtual hymns, and break bread with our enemies.
Ahh....don't know where I'm going with this? OK...forget I mentioned the idea.

This quotation perfectly and completely encapsulates the general disdain I hold for gun control, and for all the superfluous laws legislated "for our own good." I would love to have the arsenal of a vocabulary its author had. I don't believe it could be better said.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis

It really makes me nervous to be "counting our chickens before they hatch" nothing is a lock that involves any part of our government and a decision that is months away. I have watched hunters, gun owners from my fathers generation who taught me what the second amendment was renege and start arguing that while we may possess guns to hunt no one should own an AK 47 or any type of so called black rifle or "assault rifle" since they are more lethal on people than animals. I have steadfastly argued and believe the second amendment was not intended to put meat on our table but to of course defend ourselves from tyranny. That is why it talks of militia not duck clubs. And while i always will belong to the duck club it is there that I have heard this very argument many times while we are literally surrounded by guns and the protection the constitution has provided us. To be honest this strange dichotomy scares me more than every anti gun nut out there. My own father left the NRA for these reasons and so forgive me but nothing on this issue leaves me with much faith. That very contradiction is what we really need to keep an eye out for.

Carter is a boob. He let the Iranians walk all over the USA. Got many good men killed in the Iranian desert, ran from a rabbit and 'lusted in his heart' .

According to "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America" the right to life is an "unalienable right" coming not from government nor men but from the "Creator".

That right requires the right to self-defense.
That right requires the right to the means of self-defense.

Therefore the right to keep and bear arms comes from the Creator and does not stem from the 2nd Amendment. It was merely codified by men in that amendment.
It is an inherent right held by all mankind regardless of the musings of our Supreme Court or any other body politic.

I was reading about some of the opinions of the "liberal" SCOTUS judges when the previous Heller case was heard. I was shocked...although it is par for the course for the average liberal mindset...to learn that some of the more liberal judges based their opinions on what is acceptable (firearm freedoms) in "other" free societies.
I didn't recently far off of a banana boat so who are these "other" free societies and what right do even the mighty SCOTUS judges have to compare our Constitution's Bill of Rights which is intrinsic and unique to our society and county to those of "other" free societies.
When the creators of our Costitution set that great work in motion, it was a work to insure future rights for the citizens of this country.
I'm not naive enough to discount the fact that to some degree our founding fathers considered laws, customs, and common law practiced by our allies (who at the time may have been considered free societies) and were affected by the Great Enlightenment period.
Given the current situation of the world however it is MHO that the SCOTUS judges (liberal and conservative alike) should rule on the McDonald case solely by the merits of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and other free societies be da**ed.
Since when should firearm policies of any other nation serve as an example for the United States. If that had ever been a factor, then we most likely wouldn't have a 2nd Amendment to begin with, given the repressive firearms laws of particular "other" free societies.
I'm not a lawyer, however I do think I may have a small grain of common sense. I will never cease to be amazed at how certain lawyers are able to become SCOTUS judges.
If the SCOTUS can gut the 2nd Amendment based on what "other" free societies do then what's next? The 1st Amendment, or maybe the 4th Amendment because we know that our country's law enforcement would never violate our rights in the name of some greater good (as in like they do in "other" free societies)!
Oh well, my rant is over, where's my coffee cup?

Oops! That was supposed to be fell off a banana boat! Sorry.

Thanks for the ruminations, Dave.

I echo the views of the founding fathers, who see our rights as given by our Creator, and not by mortal, feckless humans. If the Supreme Court comes on board, fine..but if not, it cannot alter what is our 'inalienable rights'. The role of the people, including her magazines, is to teach and call to memory the lessons of the past, and exercise our rights.

Teach a kid to shoot. Greatest deterrent to ignorance since Sunday School. That's my place, and here I stand.

Blue

".....keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...."
Keep means to own; bear means to carry. Taking that as it is written and not reading it holistically, no government nor private entity can prohibit the owning or carrying of a firearm by American citizens. nuff said.
Laws can be passed banning the manufacture and sale of certain types of firearms and that can be achieved by "international" agreements.
When everyone's attention was diverted by the health care sh**storm and Brown's election victory in Massachusetts, Broom Hilda Hilary was meeting with the UN and agreeing with their small arms ownership and sale international treaty. (a George Soros idea) Bush once killed that action by the UN, Obama will not. One should keep an eye on the Secretary of State.

Buckhunter

To set the tone here, I am not one of the guys who gave you a minus one for your "I like Jimmy Carter" post. However, Jimmy Carter is a decent human being who has devoted himself to many misguided projects that do not necessarily contribute to our national interests.

He was one of the worst Presidents we have ever had and should stick to his Habitat for Humanity projects and peanut picking. He is a good man who cares for others and I'm sure he will be rewarded for that. I'm betting that he is glad Obama is in office to take him off the list as Worst President Ever.

if obama jumps on the U.N. bandwagon, we could be headed for another civil war. i for one will not hand over a single firearm no matter what!

Good quality Grease and PVC Pipe may be our best friends soon, sadly.

I'd like to know why a carry permit is required to do what is a Constitutional Right?

The second says 'Keep And BEAR Arms', does not Bear Arms mean to carry? I always thought it did, or am I nuts?

So far all they seem to be ruling on is the right to own (keep) guns, not the bear arms part, but if one is upheld is not the other half as well?

I find the whole discussion about the application of the 2nd Amendment interesting because federal properties and the District of Columbia DIDN'T EXIST when the Constitution was being written and ratified. For whom do the anti-gunners think that first group of amendments were written? It should be obvious that they were intended for the future citizens of the country they were working to build. Any political period reading of those times shows very clearly that the framers intended average citizen to be able to own firearms as a hedge against an out-of- control government to which they had a front row seat i.e. England.

Yeah, Carter has done so much good since being evicted from the presidency, which he totally screwed up. Has anyone seen the reports about the houses he has built for Habitat For Humanity, falling apart. I guess he was a incompetent there too, but hey, he meant well.

Cbass:

That is a great quote from C.S. Lewis. Here it is again:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

This is why Obama is so much scarier than most liberals, even the Clintons. Though Bill Clinton was (is!) a liberal, he was (is!) also infinitely corruptible. Give him $100 K and he'd let you jump on Abraham Lincoln's bed. Obama and his crowd are so sure that what they are doing with health care is right, they are willing to commit professional suicide to do it. If these court rulings spur them to turn on guns with the same attitude, things will get messy fast.

I'm going to live up to my screen name.
I am far more concerned with this UN Treaty problem right now than I am with any other current gun rights concern. Our Constitution says that treaties supersede constitutional provisions. That means that Barry signs the treaty, and Harry and Joe ram it through the senate, and soon we have troops in blue berets going door to door looking for firearms. Knowing Americans, the Blue Berets will be taking some losses, but we shouldn't have to worry about this kind of stupidity in the first place....

Stinker-
Even though Hitlery is embracing the U.N. Treaty with both arms, and obummer would probably sign such a thing, being the complete U.N. sycophant, it would still have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. At the present time, given his difficulties ramming "Health Care" down our throats, the passage of an unconstitutional gun ban does not look likely. However, pray for a turnaround in the 2010 elections, and obummer's defeat in 2012.

To All: Those of you who think Jimmuh Carter was a friend of hunters or gun owners had best flush out your headgear. During his presidency, Carter signed the Alaska Land Bill, which closed 40,000,000 acres of wilderness to hunting. He was also consistently anti-gun, and last year wrote an editorial in The New York Times urging that the Clinton assault weapons ban be re-instated.

In addition to mismanaging the economy, getting us humiliated in Iran, and on, and on.

Jimmie Carter doesn't understand the definition of truce in Arabic. Which is, I’ll be back later to kill you after you give me the weapons and training to do it!

Cool, so Carter is a great guy....Now all the U.N needs to do is give you guys some peanuts, free blankets and build a few homes before they take your guns and limit hunting access and they will also "have good intentions"....So thats how it works..wait a minute...sounds all to familiar I guess we are native americans...Don't forget to get in line onn even or odd days to get gas while you are at it..Carter was one of the worst Presidents in U.S history

I fail to see the relevance of Jimmy Carter . . . but his brother Billy on the other hand, well, I need a can of that Billy Beer . . . whatever you think of Jimmy, you have to admit, he had the most entertaining "first sibling" of all the presidents

Bella,
You are 100% correct Jimmy Carter was/is a good man out of office, just not a good president.

buckhunter, I figured as much but you can't expect people to understand tongue in cheek. New people here don't know your/our history of comments, although I was sincere in my post to Bella about Carter being a good man in his heart. He just wasn't the man for the job.

I'm glad I checked in on this blog. I have finally found someone who admits they voted for Jimmie Carter, Up until this time no one would admit to doing so. To the point. I am afraid even if a favorable ruling comes down they will follow DC's lead and see just how many hoops and igornant regulations a gun owner is willing to do to own a gun. I think they should knowby now that a gun owner will go to any length to be able to exercise his second ammendent rights.

Cbass is dead on with the writing of CS Lewis. Carter would do himself and the country better to stay home and shut up. I was born in Ga. and am Christian as well,because of these things I have tryed to like this man.I try no longer to support him,he left his faith for his politics.If that were not the case he could in no way support obama.He has chosen the hard left for favor in their eyes. Buckhunter, Reagan saved this country a great amount of money as well as the tax payers. The problem was he could not save as much as the Dems that had control of the congress and senate could spend.They write the checks NOT the president.The president can only ask for money, or veto spending bills or budgets.Congress and senate can still over ride the veto with enough votes.CONGRESS AND SENATE write the checks for all WARS and ALL spending.The problem we have now is that the FOOLS have control of all 3 branches of government. 43% of the money spent in 2009 was borrowed, that number can only go up.The only reason Nancy,Harry and Barry haven't got started on gun bills is because they can't stand to loose any more support from anyone and still get power,control of health care.

I served in Officer Corps under Carter and Reagan. I still recall the changes in the war orders that came within 60-days of RR becoming the head honco. Difference was remarkable. But I digress:

This SCOTUS decision will a big one for us. Notice how little major media outlets are giving it.

I am Proud to say I have never voted for ANY %&$#in Dems. I was the first in several generations of my family to break away from it, my Mother never forgave me for it.

Moishe-
+1 and good for you! I never have either, but being raised in a family that thought FDR was the next thing to the Messiah, I was quite a radical until Jimmuh the Peanut made some of them see the light. If the current trend in national politics keeps on the way it is going, there may be more conversions to the conservative cause. Let us pray it will be so.

A one vote margin does not leave me very comfortable

Even that one vote margin is not guaranteed. Justice Kennedy voted with us in the Heller case, but he has previously sided with local government over citizens' rights in other matters.
In Heller, the Court had to decide whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, as opposed to a collective right, to bear arms. Here in the Chicago case, the Court has to decide whether the Second Amendment secures that right against infringement by state and local governments.