"The Supreme Court appears willing to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.
The court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area. The suit also asks the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C." AP News
Well, here we go again on the guns. SCOTUS will, IMO, rule that the 2nd Amendment severely restricts the ability of state governments to limit gun rights and that the 2nd Amendment applies to all governments within the US. This is a major constitutional skirmish in the centuries old struggle over whether or not the union of the states makes them administrative territories or if they remain sovereign to some extent. The Civil War's outcome did not settle this issue. It did not because the victorious states did not wish the implication of Northern victory to be manifest in their own territories. In that context, re-admission of the seceded states ensured that the contest over centralized "national" government would continue indefinitely, and, it has.
The conservatives on the court are of mixed feelings about this gun control case. On the one hand they would like to affirm the individual's 2nd Amendment rights across the country but on the other hand they are also inclined towards the restriction of federal government power, a problem.
The outcome will probably be an extension of this particular amendment into state government while at the same time the court finds some way to enable the states to restrict gun ownership by lunatics, felons, etc. It will be interesting to see how that is done.
This post will be the occasion for more expressions of incredulity on the part of anti-gun people in the US (mostly urban) and foreigners at the desire and insistence of many Americans to keep their weapons. Ho hum.
I am reminded of the three days I once spent in Ottawa on business in the company of a Canadian senator (very much a political "hack") who lectured me incessantly on this issue in spite of my disinterest in his opinion. He finally got to the point of telling me that it was incredible that "a man of my intelligence couldn't see" that he was right about this. He was mistaken. I am not intelligent enough to see his point or agree with it. pl