Whoops. Must be nice to have that connection when you neglect to follow the law that you impose on the rest of us.....On June 11, 2008, Respondent [City of Chicago] enacted a 120-day
amnesty period allowing the re-registration of firearms
whose registration had lapsed. The amnesty
ordinance was sponsored by a city alderman who had
neglected to timely re-register his firearms. App. 53.
If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.
As I said, it's a pretty beautiful argument they've crafted in the Chicago case. Even most liberals (the intellectually honest ones anyway) can't find fault with it. It will be interesting to see what the final breakdown is when SCOTUS rules on it. I'd like to imagine that it won't be a 5-4 ruling. If you rule against this then you effectively rule against every other ruling that has extended Constitutional protections to the states.In the Chicago case, the justices are considering whether the 2nd Amendment should be applied to the states by either the 14th Amendment's due process clause (which applies to "persons") or its privileges and immunities clause (which protects only citizens). The court should say yes, even as it reaffirms its assurance in its 2008 decision that government may still impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.