Chicago’s new ordinance demands careful review, and many questions still need to be answered about its implementation. But some things are readily apparent...
We applaud Chicago for not adopting the unconstitutional insurance and gun-rationing schemes. Of course, Chicago adopted other measures, not all of which we can approve. This is not a definitive and complete overview, but a sense of where we are.
The bottom line so far: this is far from perfect, but could have been worse, and the city seems to understand its ability to regulate is not unlimited. We may be close to achieving our litigation objectives in this case, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll ignore other problematic laws or practices. There are natural, practical limits on the scope of any particular lawsuit. Most importantly, we are well on our way to achieving a state of affairs in Chicago where law abiding people can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without major unconstitutional obstacles. The new law, some problems notwithstanding, appears vastly better than the old one. We hope to make it better still.
In other words. McDonald II is coming.
If your not a member of the ISRA, SAF,NRA or whatever your preferred organization, now is the time.
3 comments:
Didn't they try something like this with Heller when DC put in all those new restrictions? Didn't that lower court say it was ok for DC to do what they did after the Heller decision?
What makes you think it would be different this time?
I don't know if it will end up different but they're different restrictions and a different circuit.
Shawn,
The DC District court, in Heller II, didn't treat the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. That holding is now in conflict with McDonald that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right.
I suspect the Court of Appeals will force the lower court to reconsider Heller II in light of McDonald.
--Mark
Post a Comment