View Single Post
Old July 21, 2010, 03:35 PM   #91
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,057
In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).

This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
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.? The protected right is the right to "KEEP AND BEAR" arms. There is only one right protected, however, there are two components which construct that right. I would say the word AND is very key in that regard. But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at any time or in any place. I'm just trying to figure out how far Chicago will be allowed to go in violating the Supreme Court findings in McDonald, if not in Heller.
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Page generated in 0.03487 seconds with 7 queries