Interesting analysis of McDonald SCOTUS case

[FiremanBob]

Here: http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/02/killing-slaughterhouse/

The Supreme Court has set a date of March 2, 2010, for oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the case that will decide whether the revival of the Second Amendment won in 2008’s Heller case will extend to overturning gun control restrictions imposed by local and state governments.

The legal briefs from the plaintiffs, and many of their amici, are now circulating. And an interesting division in the preferred strategy for winning the case has appeared, one based on the daring legal gambit around which most of lead McDonald lawyer (and Heller lawyer) Alan Gura’s brief is built.

I recommend the entire article. The opponents of Gura's argument claim that overturning Slaughterhouse would lead to an open-ended debate over what counts as "Privileges and Immunities" but I think that is a fairly easy straw man as those natural rights are well defined in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Had SCOTUS not neutered P&I along time ago, then this wouldn't be an issue at all. They should have used P&I clause and not 14th amendment due process (D.P.) to decide many, many cases. But such is life.

I think the amici have given enough evidence that either P&I or 14th amendment D.P. gets you to the same result - 2A applies to the states. I still look for SCOTUS to revive P&I rather than go the 14th amendment D.P. route. I think more on the court now are strict constructionists. Only time will tell.

 

[KMaurer]

You mean Due Process. Both Privileges and Immunities and Due Process are part of the 14th Amendment.

Ken

 

[GSG]

I thought this was going to be about Big Macs...