Surprising editorial from Chicago Tribune

[roscoe]

Interestingly, they agreed with the decision, on the logic that once Heller was decided, incorporation was logical and correct. And I like the last line:

"We wish states and cities were able to do even more to prevent gun violence, but if the federal government is to be constrained by the court's reading of the 2nd Amendment, so must they. Better that than a selective enforcement of the Bill of Rights."

article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns-20100629,0,93260.story

 

[Ash]

Well, perhaps they are actually being true to themselves and realizing the arguments against the 2nd Amendment could - and often have throughout the world and time - be employed against the 1st, 4th, etc.

 

[MisterMike]

It struck me as a grudging acceptance of an important aspect of the Bill of Rights. The LA Times had a more positive spin

One thing I've seen in the Chicago press is a pretty universal acceptance of the fact that gun control has not prevented violent crime. It's largely being portrayed as a failed experiment.

 

[waterhouse]

I like this part:

So why did the court's four liberals dissent? Justice John Paul Stevens opposed incorporation, among other reasons, because "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty." Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, complained that the right isn't "fundamental." It's hard to escape the suspicion that their aversion to the proliferation of firearms — an aversion we share — overrode their commitment to precedent and consistent law.

 

[DonP]

"Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor"

Hey, wait a minute! Could that possibly be the same Sotomayor that in her Senate hearings said that "Heller was settled law and now precedent"?

If she really believed that, how could she vote against McDonald and for the Chicago side of the argument?

Unless .... she lied through her teeth and was willing to say anything to get the seat that she'll never be removed from, kind of like this Kagan person?

Hmmm, maybe some people that profess to be 2nd supporters should ask her harder, more pointed questions or just tell her to take a hike.

 

[neverjeg]

If you can't understand a right, that is only one fragmented sentance long, then you don't need to be on the Supreme Court.

With a vote along party lines - the supreme court has again made a mockery of the law.
It's a joke. All that matters is what judge you draw. Not the Law. Just imagine what this country would be now with just one more liberal on the bench!

 

[Ash]

Yeah, a hair's width in Florida in 2000 and we would be viewing the potential and ultimate loss of firearms rights with absolute bans and an energized anti firearm coalition running rough-shod over us.

 

[Art Eatman]

A discussion of the Trib's view, although interesting, is not actually a discussion of the decision.