[marktwain]

Alan does a good job of reporting on the oral arguments.

[Bean Counter]

Good writeup and I will be eager to see what else he writes about this. If you have a pinglist going on this, please include me!

[hadit2here]

From the article:

plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general (”guns kill!”), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns...

I'd give my eye teeth and one of my testicles to have one of the lawyers tell those two Justices:

Your Honors, how many people that are killed by guns or how many people parade around in public with them have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. The whole thing has to do with a Constitutional right to own, possess and carry firearms of any type. That is all it comes down to. The Second Amendment states unequivocally that every person has those rights. So there is only one way you can rule because otherwise, there are NO RIGHTS for anyone if there is no right to own and bear arms. Period.

[pissant]

This is a HUGE case

[zeugma]

Does anyone know where to find transcripts of oral arguments? If I can find it, I’ll post it here.

[zeugma]

I should have just looked before I posted previously. That was rediculously easy to find.

Oral Arguments: McDonald v. Chicago

It's a PDF, but better than nothing.

[William Tell]

The linked article refers to: "... the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process ..."

I like this reference since it helps point out a concern I have had for some time.

The phrase "procedural due process" has a certain redundancy to it for the simple reason that a "procedure" is virtually indistinguishable from a "process". The idea that there could be a "substantive due process" which is not "procedural" is nonsense.

I believe that the nonsense was invented for the sole purpose of eliminating the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens, including the immunity from infringement by the federal government of the right to keep and bear arms.

[Joe Brower]

[supercat]

BTW, an argument I haven't seen used for invoking RKBA against the states, but one which I would think should be particularly applicable in the Chicago case, would be the equal protection clause. Even if states had the authority to forbid everyone from possessing and/or carrying weapons, any rules declaring that some people are allowed to keep and bear arms but others are not must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The Chicago rule which allows aldermen to keep and bear arms but forbids ordinary citizens from doing so should be viewed as nothing less than a de facto grant of nobility in direct defiance of the Constitution.