# McDonald v. Chicago Discussion Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660 "2010-06-27T02:25:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/101 "2010-06-29T19:42:08Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well, except in the majority of the country it has been an individual right. And it is hard to blame SCOTUS for not realizing it earlier when there hasn’t been a case or controversy to decide on it. And the reason for that is the pro-gun rights lobby has not chosen to bring a case, because it thought (probably rightly, but we don’t know) that it would lose. There is that possibility, but much more likely is the idea that the Supreme Court ducked the issue for 80 years. There’s no reason to believe that there weren’t cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court in those 80 years. Hell, there are thousands of BoR cases that the Supreme Court is asked to hear every single year. Yet in 80 years they didn’t hear a single 2nd Amendment case? The Court was ducking it. There’s no doubt in my mind, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/102 "2010-06-29T19:48:00Z")
You could be right, **Doors**. I don’t remember hearing of cert being refused on interesting cases, but I’d be interested to see if it was. This is obviously horribly anecdotal and all, but I do remember hearing in discussion that the NRA for one was notoriously reluctant to back cases for fear of getting precedent it did not like. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/103 "2010-06-29T20:26:57Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You could be right, **Doors**. I don’t remember hearing of cert being refused on interesting cases, but I’d be interested to see if it was. This is obviously horribly anecdotal and all, but I do remember hearing in discussion that the NRA for one was notoriously reluctant to back cases for fear of getting precedent it did not like. That is true. In fact, they didn’t back _Heller_ initially, going so far as to try to lobby the DC City Council into changing the law and mooting the lawsuit. Still, NRA backing isn’t required, and in any case the NRA in its current form didn’t exist until 1977, 38 years after _Miller_ was decided. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/104 "2010-06-29T22:25:02Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > Yes, have you ever seen one? Every day when I get clothes out of my closet. What’s your point? If it’s that someone couldn’t carry one, ready to use, in a vehicle, or conceal one under something as light as a spring windbreaker jacket, then you’re extraordinarily ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/105 "2010-06-29T22:59:25Z")
I was wondering about something: remember that full-automatic firearms aren’t actually illegal under the NFA of 1934, just required to be registered. The registry for them is currently closed to new additions thanks to the Hayes amendment. Since the McDonald decision mentions the Chicago practice of requiring registration and then refusing to allow it, do you suppose the Hayes amendment might be struck down on similar grounds? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/106 "2010-06-30T00:04:53Z")
I think the Supreme Court got it right. I’m not a lawyer, but the 2nd Amendment is more linguistically clear to me than the 14th, for example. It bothers me that people have such issue with American gun ownership. If you don’t want your neighbor to have guns, move to any other place on the planet where gun ownership is illegal like Mexico, Canada, Europe, China, etc etc OR start a campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It’s easy. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/107 "2010-06-30T00:22:38Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I think the Supreme Court got it right. I’m not a lawyer, but the 2nd Amendment is more linguistically clear to me than the 14th, for example. It bothers me that people have such issue with American gun ownership. If you don’t want your neighbor to have guns, move to any other place on the planet where gun ownership is illegal like Mexico, Canada, Europe, China, etc etc OR start a campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It’s easy. > > - Honesty All of those places have gun ownership, except perhaps China. Mexico has their own version of the 2nd Amendment, although they don’t have the same issue here because theirs allows exemption. Gun ownership is very common in rural Canada, the main difference being pistols are almost impossible to get. Europe ranges from strict England to pretty liberal Switzerland. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/108 "2010-06-30T01:05:28Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Mexico has their own version of the 2nd Amendment, although they don’t have the same issue here because theirs allows exemption. I checked the status of [Mexican gun laws](http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/). Yeah, Mexicans have a “right” to keep and bear arms _ **except** _… Holy Guacamole! It’s pretty clear that Mexicans have only those guns that the government magnaminously permits them to have, and that’s written in at the Constitutional level. As has been posted in previous threads, saying that many other countries “have gun ownership” doesn’t mean a hell of a lot when in practice that means that the government, at it’s discretion, allows a few sporting weapons with heavy restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/109 "2010-06-30T01:42:41Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I was wondering about something: remember that full-automatic firearms aren’t actually illegal under the NFA of 1934, just required to be registered. The registry for them is currently closed to new additions thanks to the Hayes amendment. Since the McDonald decision mentions the Chicago practice of requiring registration and then refusing to allow it, do you suppose the Hayes amendment might be struck down on similar grounds? It’s actually the Hughes Amendment, and yes, this discussion has come up. Will it happen? We’ll see. Remember, in spite of all the rhetoric that gets bandied about with regard to “nukes” and “missiles” and the like, the Supreme Court left in their decision a statement about “reasonable regulation” being permissible. The closing of the registry may stand on that basis alone. I can guarantee that it will be challenged, though, and probably soon. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/110 "2010-06-30T16:49:19Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Ever heard of a rifle? Good point. Better ban those too. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/111 "2010-06-30T16:52:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Good point. Better ban those too. Don’t forget pointy sticks. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/112 "2010-06-30T16:58:17Z")
…and fresh fruit. ---
**Author:** ![Methyl\_Ethyl\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Methyl\_Ethyl\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Methyl_Ethyl_Death)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/113 "2010-07-02T15:29:39Z")
…and 16 ton weights ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/114 "2010-07-02T15:52:05Z")
“Let Freedom Ring!” [THIS](http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district%20attorney/Documents/McDonald%20vs.%20City%20of%20Chicago.pdf) District Attorney says he won’t prosecute Wisconsins weapons laws because they are unconstitutional. It’s about time our government obeys the supreme law of the land and I applaud Gerald Fox for having the guts to do this. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/115 "2010-07-02T16:32:08Z")
It’s probably about the time the people of Jackson County, Wisconsin elected a District Attorney [who can read](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf). [QUOTE=Gerald R. Fox] This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes: Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles; Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms; **Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings** ; Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and, Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement. All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. **This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings)** and 9.29 (CCW). [/QUOTE] My bolding. [QUOTE=Justice Alito] **We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as** “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “ **laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings** , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. **We repeat those assurances here**. [/QUOTE] Again, my bolding. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/116 "2010-07-02T17:05:25Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > “Let Freedom Ring!” > > [THIS](http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district%20attorney/Documents/McDonald%20vs.%20City%20of%20Chicago.pdf) District Attorney says he won’t prosecute Wisconsins weapons laws because they are unconstitutional. > > It’s about time our government obeys the supreme law of the land and I applaud Gerald Fox for having the guts to do this. Look…I’m highly pro-gun, as you might have noticed, but don’t you think that statement from the county AG is a bit unusual? I’ve read a lot of AG memorandums and statements on topics as I research things, and this one seems really…well, I want to say “unprofessional” but it’s not that bad…not in keeping with the office? I would have expected a factual-only, dry statement of “as a result of our review, we believe that these laws are not Constitutional…” Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/117 "2010-07-02T17:20:21Z")
Is Fox sincere, or is he doing this as a scare tactic, trying to make people think Wisconsin is about to become Dodge City? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/118 "2010-07-02T17:31:40Z")
I’m guessing he’s [sincere](http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=48248). > [@](#): > > You may add my name to the list of opponents of the State Bar’s embrace of a political position; advocacy of gun control (August Wisconsin Lawyer). With all due respect to Past President Saichek, this is unquestionably a political issue, as it directly impacts constitutionally protected freedoms. In addition, even if this were not clearly a political issue, it has nothing whatsoever to do with advancement of the legal profession or provision of legal services to those in need. > > Mr. Saichek also indicates his belief that “Proliferation of cheap and unduly dangerous handguns has definitely affected our courts and the investment of judicial resources.” Ignoring for the moment the glaring failure to define the terms “cheap” and “unduly dangerous” (as if any firearm is not dangerous), Mr. Saichek misses the point. That being, every single act the State Bar Commission on Violence and the Justice System is worried about is already against existing law. Rather than a hysterical and elitist rush to judgment, couched in terms of protecting our courts, the Commission would do the public a greater service by emphasizing protection for individual liberties while focusing on the root causes of violence in our society. > > Again, guns, even the “cheap and unduly dangerous handguns,” are not the problem. Every time a firearm has caused an injury or fatality there has been a human hand involved. Rather than employ sophistic arguments to finesse the membership of the Bar and the public at large into giving up their hard-won rights, the Commission could support existing efforts to identify and ameliorate the root causes of unrest and violence in our society. Regrettably, these efforts usually lack the glamour and appeal of parroting Handgun Control Inc.'s party line. > > If the State Bar is to retain and enhance its position as a beacon of dispassionate reason in our modern legal climate, we must studiously avoid taking political positions as an organization. All the members of the Commission, indeed, all the members of the Bar, are free to vote for political candidates and espouse their individual political beliefs as they so choose. However, it is an affront to the individuality of each of the Bar’s members and to the dignity of the Bar itself to engage in a political assault, especially where the freedoms to be affected are so dear as to be protected by the Bill of Rights. > > Gerald R. Fox > Black River Falls Incidentally, [he’s also a Democrat](http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/bb/07bb/pdf/740-777.pdf) (.pdf, see page 8). ☹ ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/119 "2010-07-02T17:41:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s probably about the time the people of Jackson County, Wisconsin elected a District Attorney [who can read](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf). Maybe if we had a better press corps to explain this ruling properly to people, stuff like this wouldn’t happen. Saying the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated is a bit of a misnomer. The Court did not decide that the 2nd Amendment prevents the States from barring citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense; it’s the 14th Amendment that protects this right. Just because it protects the same right that was outlined in _Heller_ doesn’t mean that the right to bear arms under A14 will be exactly the same as the right to bear arms under A2. It’s going to take lots of litigation to fully hash out the parameters of the right. This district attorney isn’t doing his job. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660/120 "2010-07-02T17:46:05Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Is Fox sincere, or is he doing this as a scare tactic, trying to make people think Wisconsin is about to become Dodge City? He’s a Democrat, so who knows? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonald-v-chicago-discussion-thread/544660.md?page=7)