Originally Posted by USAFNoDAK
Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.?
I have no doubt that Chicago's new laws will fail in court, but I think the challenge will be based on both Heller
. It will cite Heller
to say, "Hey, my right under the 2nd Amendment has been ruled to be an individual right, so don't tell me it doesn't apply to me since I'm not in a militia," and it will cite McDonald
to say, "And, by the way, this individual right of mine is binding on the states, so don't tell me the the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you."
From there, I think the more straightforward, repeated references to THE right to keep AND BEAR arms in Alito's McDonald
decision will be used extensively.