Negative Effects of a win in McDonald v. Chicago?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
Does anyone know of any negative effects we could receive from a McDonald v. Chicago victory?



If so, what could these effects be.
.

 

[NukemJim]

Mayor Daley will (see his recent press conference) have new laws, regulations and requirements forfirearm/handgun ownership in Chicago. There is a realistic chance that some of these may be at the county or state level.

NukemJim

 

[hellervdc]

To have the SC put to bed the debate whether the 2dA is applicable to the states is so important and so huge, i can't imagine any downsides. The status quo for Chicago is so bad, anything would be an improvement.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I half expect Daly to simply ignore a win in McDonald.
Bloomberg has made supposed modification to the Sullivan law in NYC but that's a joke.

I still call the Heller decision "the lawyer employment decision"

AFS

 

[Deanimator]

I half expect Daly to simply ignore a win in McDonald.

I'd sue, win, and attach Buckingham fountain and city hall.

If it worked with the Soviet Union, it'll work with Daley.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'd sue, win, and attach Buckingham fountain and city hall.

If it worked with the Soviet Union, it'll work with Daley.

Hasn't worked in DC yet. They did pretty much the same thing, put a process in place that is technically just barely in keeping with Heller while not really changing anything at all.

Chicago will do the same. Permitting process that takes $1500 and 12 months to complete.

Years of lawsuits ahead of us.....

 

[CoRoMo]

As with Heller, we'll most likely get another majority opinion that cements into history, the allowance of "reasonable restrictions/regulations".

Hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, spent in the generations to come, will iron out what the different levels of government will be allowed to inflict upon the citizenry, by way of those few words.

 

[femoralis]

Courts will fall all over themselves issuing decisions declaring all sorts of foolish gun laws "constitutional". This will build up a lot of bad case law.

 

[General Geoff]

This is what happens when the Supreme Court lets 75 years of bad law build up before clarifying what is an individual, fundamental right. They end up having to do a tightrope walk between upholding the constitution, and completely uprooting almost a century of established law (which comes with it the automatic nullification of any convictions of said established law). If they'd have done this back in 1968 (at which point there should have been massive constitutional questionability to the Gun Control Act), there wouldn't be nearly as much institutional backlash.

 

[Deanimator]

Hasn't worked in DC yet.

Exactly. Not YET.

It'd be fun to go down in history as the guy who attached Buckingham fountain. Even more fun would be to be the person who made Daley so mad he stroked out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Even more fun would be to be the person who made Daley so mad he stroked out.

Given his press conference recently he's doing a good job of that himself

 

[Deanimator]

Given his press conference recently he's doing a good job of that himself

My mother was a mental health technician with the State of Illinois for 20+ years. What he had is called a "psychotic break"!

The reporter should have asked him, "Did the voices tell you to say that?"

It won't be long before he's going with Dennis Kucinich and Anne Heche to meet the space people.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I would expect the gun law situation to get a lot worse in the ban states. Currently, the laws in these states are written in a way to discourage firearms ownership in general. Things like may issue allow them to deny whatever permits they feel like.

I would predict that in the wake of McDonald, places like NJ, NY, CA, etc. will pass more gun control laws like micro stamping, written testing, and all that crap to counteract the benefits their citizens gained. Just like DC did after Heller.

Supreme Court upheld "reasonable gun control" or whatever they called it, I guess after McDonald we get to see what "reasonable" means.

 

[ArmedBear]

I would predict that in the wake of McDonald, places like NJ, NY, CA, etc. will pass more gun control laws like micro stamping, written testing, and all that crap to counteract the benefits their citizens gained.

Yes, winning will just piss off our adversaries, but still, this makes me think of Life of Brian.

- Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Jehovah".
- You're only making it worse for yourself!
- Making it worse?! How could it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks

If we lose McDonald, it's not like these things won't happen. There just won't be any hope for reversing them. These states are NOT representative democracies. They're structural oligarchies.

 

[Cogster1]

What's Next?

Can anybody tell me - what's next in this case? What happens after oral arguments?

 

[Deanimator]

Can anybody tell me - what's next in this case? What happens after oral arguments?

There should be a decision handed down next month.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Does anyone know of any negative effects we could receive from a McDonald v. Chicago victory?

Many negative effects are possible, even likely:

Gun ownership will become protected by the Constitution.

People in restrictive jurisdictions will be able to purchase guns.

The ACLU will need to learn to count to two.

Gun prices will go up from increased demand.

People who now make a living preying on the unarmed in shall not issue states will need to go on unemployment.

People will have to ask themselves: "How could so many of us have been so stupid for so long?"

 

[ArmedLiberal]

Can anybody tell me - what's next in this case? What happens after oral arguments?

The Heller decision was released on the last day of the SCOTUS term, I think the last Friday in June.

Probably be the same for McDonald, but no one knows for sure until it happens.

 

[StarDust1]

This is what happens when the Supreme Court lets 75 years of bad law build up before clarifying what is an individual, fundamental right. They end up having to do a tightrope walk between upholding the constitution, and completely uprooting almost a century of established law (which comes with it the automatic nullification of any convictions of said established law). If they'd have done this back in 1968 (at which point there should have been massive constitutional questionability to the Gun Control Act), there wouldn't be nearly as much institutional backlash.

Questionable? The GCA of 68 is a clear infringement of the 2nd Amendment, whats more is that it was mostly fueled by the Kennedy assassination which the house select committee stated was most likely the result of a conspiracy! So they responded by doing what? Yeah, thats right, they attacked the rights of "We The People!"

 

[Zoogster]

Negative effects depend on what the SCOTUS chooses to say.

They could add a sentence at any time in the decision that limits firearm freedoms even more while still deciding in favor of McDonald.


Or they could not.
Trying to debate on what sentence they could possibly add that caused a future greater restriction of firearm freedoms would be pointless as the possibilities are endless.