search
top

WaPo Speaking Like It’s a Done Deal

Even the Washington Post is conceding the likelihood of the Chicago handgun ban defeated.

Given how the Constitution has evolved, lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local government, just as the First Amendment does. It would seem at least incongruous — and may ultimately be legally indefensible — for residents of the District to enjoy constitutional rights that are withheld from people in Chicago or other parts of the country.

In fact, I’ve had a hard time finding newspaper op-eds that call for the Supreme Court to refuse to incorporate the Second Amendment.  Two Chicago Tribune columnists, here, and here, both think the result is going to be a victory for the Second Amendment, and don’t call for the Supreme Court to rule the other way.

The media is surrendering on this issue. The Brady Campaign are surrendering on this issue, at least publicly. I think we will have incorporation, and then we will begin to define the boundaries of the Second Amendment. That’s where the real fight is, but in no future case will the stakes be as high as they were with Heller, and now McDonald.

7 Responses to “WaPo Speaking Like It’s a Done Deal”

  1. georgeh says:

    It took two decades, the ’50s and ’60s, to work out the limits of the First Amendment, but it was inevitable once the earliest rulings were made.

  2. Jim W says:

    They’re hoping for another victory that doesn’t actually change anything for the better. For all the supposed impact of the DC ruling, you still can’t buy guns in DC without jumping through a million hoops and paying a ton of money.

  3. Chas says:

    It’s like a Civil War battle. They’re abandoning the incorporation line because they know it’s indefensible. But they’ll be forming up along the reasonable restriction line, because they believe they can hold us there. They’ll be digging in deep, because they know it’s their last line of defense. If we beat them on reasonable restrictions; they lose the war.
    They will fight hard, especially at first, when they’re fresh, but if we fight hard enough, we may overrun their line, and if we have enough momentum, their line may collapse almost entirely. There is an inertia in politics, and if we can muster enough of it, we may succeed more than we imagine. There is no Ted Kennedy on the other side to stop us anymore, and I take comfort from that fact as much as the anti-gun rights people dread it.
    You may then be able to buy a new machine gun anywhere in the US, though you may have to register it. You may be able to carry your handgun anywhere in the US, though you may have to have a license. You may be able to buy a gun on the Internet without having to pay an FFL, though you may have to provide the seller with a copy of your driver’s license to prove you’re old enough. Criminals will still be able to get guns, as they do now, but with law-abiding people free to be armed, the advantage of being a criminal with a gun will be less of an advantage. In sum, there will be reasonable restrictions, not restrictions for the sake of restriction with the goal of prohibition. Kind of like what freedom is supposed to be.

  4. RAH says:

    The most interesting item is that Priviledges and Immunities is going to be argued. Sounds like Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas want to get another lne for liberty to be argued i the future under the P &I instead of Due Process

  5. Rick says:

    I can not see the Supreme Court doing anything but rule against Chicago’s restrictive laws against all types of guns. If they rule for Chicago, they will incur the beginnings of a second revolution, and I think they know it. I own several hand guns and I will not give them up. And I have heard from many others who say the same thing.

    I’m looking for SCOTUS to strengthen the rights under the Second Amendment.

  6. RAH says:

    The editorial opinion in LA Times, WAPO, Chicago Tribune and NYT has been uniform that incorporation is assumed. WE won that battle.

    I found it interesting that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas chose McDonald as the vehicle of incorporation. The reason seems to be that they want to revisit Privileges and Immunities that was eviscerated in the Slaughthouse cases of 1874.

    Now most of our civil liberties have expanded under the doctrine of Due Process. But that progress has stopped. Many of us have condemned the progress of nanny laws enacted under local and state governments. This has lead to a diminishing of our freedoms to do certain things or take risks both commercially and privately.

    However if we get to use Privileges and Immunities against local and states then we can expand or push back against all these laws designed to save us from ourselves.

  7. Arnie says:

    I am a pretty hard core State sovereigntist who believes the Bill of Rights was ratified to protect State sovereignty as well as individual rights from usurpation and tyranny by limiting the national government, and State constitutions were responsible for limiting the power of State and local governments. However, I read in the NRA’s Second Amendment Primer a quote from William Rawle who wrote the text books on American government for West Point in the early 1800s that the general government has no constitutional, enumerated “power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some pretence by a STATE legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power EITHER should attempt it, this (2nd) amendment maybe appealed to as a restraint on BOTH.” (P. 106, emphases mine.)
    Although he seems to acknowledge the 2A does not proscribe the POWER of States to restrict arms, he clearly intimates that it restricts their MOTIVES (“blind pursuit of inordinate power”) for so doing. Rawle was not a first tier Founder, but he was no also-ran either. His opinion bears further study and I intend to do so.
    Arnie

top