Having read Heller, and the questions/comments made during oral arguments, I'll go on the record and say the result will essentially be this:
- The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right
- It is 'incorporated' and thus binding upon the states
- States may enact some "reasonable" regulations, but we won't tell you ahead of time what they are. (This is a part of the never-ending extension of the full-employment-for-lawyers act.)
- No mention whatsoever will be made of Letters of Marque and Reprisal (this is almost laughably unbelievable if you consider the history of same and how it relates to that which we citizens were supposed to be able to 'keep' and 'bear'.)
- The individual law in question may well be stuck down, but, like in D.C., it won't affect the fact that you essentially can't arm yourself in Chicago. The city will set up such a rube goldberg-like maze that it will take you 10 years to negotiate it.
- End result: pretty words. no change in the status quo.
“End result: pretty words. no change in the status quo. “
Wrong, they will have further reinforced the doctrine of “incorporation” and all of its evil and destructive consequences to our rights. While at the same time they will have further demonstrated the uselessness of the 2nd amendment for serving any practical propose. as it is after all applied to the states then the same exceptions applied by the states would be applied by the Federal government not only upon the people everywhere so that there be freedom no where, but upon our states at well, so there be no way to stand up to them.
They are effectively consolidating power, and the NRA is parshaly responsible for this power grab. Meaning the NRA is either hopelessly stupid, or really not on the side of gun rights and liberty. Either way I feel betrayed.