Well… so the McDonald v. Chicago case came out in our favor. I’m pleased.
I haven’t had the opportunity to read the whole ruling yet, so I’m just going on what’s out there.
I think what people are really missing is the Constitutional impact here. Too much focus on “the gun thing”, not enough on the Constitutional impact.
I think this is really just the beginning. There’s a whole new set of interesting things now to come, be it lawsuits or how jurisdictions like Chicago are going to deal with it. I mean, the whole “reasonable restrictions” thing is ripe for silliness, and you know Daley is going to get silly.
It’s also been amusing to watch the hysterics today, be it by the media, Chicago politicians, or just citizens that are pro-bans. All the same old hysterical assertions being brought forth… yet still there’s no blood flowing in the streets. Many of the same old arguments and “data” presented but yet no real data is presented, no actual facts, no looking at the actual studies and facts and data that’s out there (see Howard Nemerov).
Now in light of this, what will be said during Kagan’s hearings? How will she respond? and will she actually take a stand, or find a way to weasel out of it? Either way, it will be telling.
Really, things have just begun.
Stuff From Hsoi 
And that is why I insist on being happy about what we got. Yeah, there is a lot of weaselwording in it. Yeah, the vote is just too damned close for comfort.
But it is one hell of a stepping stone, and will no doubt be thoroughly exploited by people significantly more skilled at doing so than I am. And that is what I am celebrating.
Of course, it’s been interesting to watch “the other side” trying to exploit it as well.
Everything’s just beginning.
I agree that most people aren’t focusing on the Constitutional issue – yet.
I think that people will take awhile to realize the impact of this decision.
I think that many people don’t see how one right buttresses the others — in this case people can now point to a clear limit on the power of the government to ban the expression of a right. Especially a right with “public safety” implications.
Read the decision and look for those words; see how Justice Alito pointed out the limits of the government. Then think of how those words can be used to trim back the PATRIOT Act.
The other aspect is directly related to the ‘gun issue’ — to me it seemed the justices went out of the way to bring up points that can be used to repeal other laws.
“The Central Component” — recognizes that there are other uses other then self defense — let’s talk sporting rifles and Assault Weapon Bans.
“Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home,”
Firearms at work, guns in cars, national parks, — while the home is “most acute” it is by far the only place. Doesn’t that phrase just beg for someone to argue ‘If we need to defend our home, how about when we leave our home’?
And on and on, yes — this is worth cheering. I think back to how case law is made and realize this is the start of an avalanche.
Makes me wonder what Alan Gura is up to right now.
Zercool had the update on Alan:
Mr. Gura is at it again.
The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.
http://zercool.blogspot.com/2010/06/never-one-to-rest-on-his-laurels.html
This is exactly what we’ve mentioned. Here is another restriction that will fall, heck I would be surprised if it goes to court.
What I’m trying to figure out is how to leverage this decision into pressuring our state lege into passing Open Carry.
Need to read the decision to pull quotes so I can email my rep and senator.
Mr. Gura is a busy man. 🙂
As for Open Carry…. I think it’s worthwhile to let our state legislators know it’s an issue important to us, as well as letting the TSRA know. However, I suspect we won’t see it happen for a while. I believe one reason it didn’t happen last session was to avoid muddying the campus carry issue. That is, it was a big priority to get campus carry through the session; if open carry was also on the table, that would have muddied the issue and likely scared the sheep even more because there’s no question they would confuse/merge the two issues.
Right now I’d rather see campus carry go through… it’s important, and it’s a smaller step than going open carry (which is just too scary to the sheep right now). Remember, it’s the sheep that we have to win over…. gotta take slow and small steps, else they freak out and stampede in the other direction, y’know?