Replies

"What if they did?"

Asked and answered, what, 6 times already? If you consider no immediate effect = no effect, then, sure, who cares?

But in 1982, the 7th Circuit ruled that "arms" do not include handguns, and now the cities of Chicago, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Evanston and Wilmette have used that to ban handgun ownership. Not "disassembled", not "with a trigger lock", not "room-to-room". A total ban.

Recently, a homeowner in Wilmette had a handgun, used it to shoot a burglar, and the homeowner was arrested.

What if they did, indeed.

But in 1982, the 7th Circuit ruled that "arms" do not include handguns...

Which is on its face a ridiculous statement. One that would be over turned under a positive ruling by the SCOTUS on the 2A.

If the SCOTUS rules as it should, then that "ban" would be null and void, the homeowner should get restitution from those who passed and adjudicated that "ban", and anyone attempting to emplace another "ban" should be jailed on charges of "deprivation of a civil rights under color of law".

But aren't you an advocate of State Constitutions protecting individual RKBA? Doesn't Illinois have an RKBA in the State constitution?

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(sarc)Whiz bang job your "state" is doing of protecting an individual Right...(/sarc)

in 1982, the 7th Circuit ruled that "arms" do not include handguns, and now the cities of Chicago, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Evanston and Wilmette have used that to ban handgun ownership.

Was the 7th Circuit just applying the settled precedent in Miller? The one where a few Justices decided for all of us that the 2A protects only a collective right? The one I would like to see revisited?

Let me ask you a question...

What would you like to see happen now? The DC Circuit ruling can be left to stand, or the SC can hear it for the reasons offered by either side in the cert petition and cross petition, or they can choose their own reasons to hear it.

All of it is out of our hands now. The DC Court has ruled, and the SC might or might not take the case, and there's nothing any of us can do but to hope for our preferred outcome. I can't tell which outcome you prefer at this point.

So what, if anything, should the SC do with the case(s)?