looks like it's going national

[justashooter 430]

of course, with 1/3 of the people in $hitcago below the poverty line, gun sales may lag.

Excellent news after Heller as I see it.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

:dance: :dance:

[Danno 1,228]

With all that gun-control... I bet that city is one of the safest in the country~!

[MrsCat 6]

You were all just watching Alan Gura on Beck weren't you.

Having read Freedom First for the past few years, this from Wiki surprised me. I would have thought the NRA was in full support of Heller from the get-go.

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[42] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[43] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[44] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship." [45]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Danno 1,228]

These things are always a Chess match.

Lets say Heller had went the "other way" because of the court make-up.

That would have green-lighted other cites to impose more bans perhaps and locked in a ruling on the issue.