McDonald vs. Chicago, What then?

I have mixed feelings about the removal of the projects. In the first place I thought the massive projects were a mistake, building them certainly pulled apart whatever neighborhood cohesion existed at the time. Further it concentrated a large group of people, many of whom were criminals, in a relatively small area.
They were opened with great fanfare. But in short order the building were not fit for humans because of some the humans living there. I remember Bobby Rush on the radio bitching about the elevators not working.
Sometime around the 80s, it should have been obvious that you could not maintain them as human habitations, nor could you tear them down because the people had no where to go. So the elites dithered while the buildings were trashed. A big problem for the advocates of “public” housing.
So they did what they do and shifted the burden to the rest of us.

I think that current anarchy was enviable, but perhaps you are right that the tear-down speeded it up.
 
I have mixed feelings about the removal of the projects. In the first place I thought the massive projects were a mistake, building them certainly pulled apart whatever neighborhood cohesion existed at the time. Further it concentrated a large group of people, many of whom were criminals, in a relatively small area.
They were opened with great fanfare. But in short order the building were not fit for humans because of some the humans living there. I remember Bobby Rush on the radio bitching about the elevators not working.
Sometime around the 80s, it should have been obvious that you could not maintain them as human habitations, nor could you tear them down because the people had no where to go. So the elites dithered while the buildings were trashed. A big problem for the advocates of “public” housing.
So they did what they do and shifted the burden to the rest of us.

I think that current anarchy was enviable, but perhaps you are right that the tear-down speeded it up.
Apart from a job interview with the State Department, I didn't visit Chicago between 1986 and 1999.

When I finally returned for a visit in '99, my mother took me around all the old places I used to go. The most astonishing thing I saw was while driving east under the El tracks, toward the lake. Suddenly they just STOPPED in mid-air. They had actually torn down the elevated train tracks. The old neighborhoods were now condos and lofts. On the SE side of Chicago now, you have to make $120,000 a year just to be homeless. Like virtually EVERYTHING Daley has done, gentrification has produced the OPPOSITE results from those promised, cost the public millions of dollars, lined the pockets of gangsters and created utter chaos.
 
I live 15 minutes south of St Louis MO... it's getting bad there too, and just last week or so a carload of hoods ventured south of the city to a couple of smaller towns and did some home invasions where all the did was shoot a person then flee. Word is that it was some sort of "gang initiation", but hard telling.
 
The latest issue of the American Rifleman carried an article about a bill being brought to vote by McCain and 9 other senators as sponsors and some 60 sponsors of similar legislation in the House.

Sounds like the bill is specifically aimed at closing some of the loopholes in Heller vs DC that might exist even if McDonald vs Chicago goes the way we hope. Sounds like it will put a clamp on the disgraceful, weasel behavior of DC and perhaps down the road Chicago. Needs to happen. Don
 
A straight-up confession of application of the 2d will not be made. The decision will be narrowly construed and will simply address Chicago.

That's my forecast and I pray SCOTUS shows me up as wrong.
 
A straight-up confession of application of the 2d will not be made. The decision will be narrowly construed and will simply address Chicago.

That's my forecast and I pray SCOTUS shows me up as wrong.
Almost nobody predicts that, not even the anti-gunners. There's virtually no way to "simply address Chicago". If the Heller principles are applied, that will incorporate the 2nd, under the 14th Amendment. All indications are that that will happen.

Chicago's argument wasn't just bad, it was ludicrous. That was borne out by the oral arguments.

Barring some bizarre turn of events, the only question is how far they'll go. The fact that it's likely that Alito will present the decision means that things don't look good for Chicago or NYC for that matter.

There will be lots more litigation, but this is New Guinea, Heller having been Guadalcanal. They were stopped by Heller, now we're rolling them back. We still have Saipan, Peleliu, etc. to go before we get to Tokyo Bay. But it's coming, and the political and cultural winds are blowing strongly our way.
 
IF I lived in Chicago (And couldnt move out for some insane reason) I would have already found a way to obtain a handgun for protection. And I would also be registered to vote against Daly staying past this term of office... I can see that they fully intend on implementing loads of rules and regulations (against those who follow the law) as to obtaining and keeping handguns as soon as the SCOTUS shoots down the ban.
 
And I would also be registered to vote against Daly staying past this term of office...
That would be your right... and utterly futile. There is as much chance of Daley getting voted out of office as there is of Kim Jong Il being voted out of office and for many of the same reasons.

The most likely exit scenario for Daley is Federal indictment if Obama is voted out, or just as likely, Federal indictment while Obama is still in office in order to clear the path for Rahm Emmanuel to become mayor. Obama hangs with a lot of Stalinists and that would clearly be the Stalinist thing to do. As with Stalin, the Rev. Wright saga proved that Obama has no friends, merely immediate enemies and potential enemies who can be exploited until the time comes to get rid of them. I'm sure that Superintendent Weis knows where the latest crop of bodies is buried. I'm also sure that Obama has more to offer Weis for his information than Daley has to offer for his silence.
 
Last edited:
Lot of word out that he will face a major challenge if Jesse Jackson Jr and/or Luis Guiterrez end up opposing him in 2011, and given the close racial percentages of the Chicago populations, it may be time that the people are just fed up with the old money running the place, or running the place down as the case may be. In the end though, it will probably have to be some sort of indictment for corruption that brings about change in that arena.
 
Hard to believe that the citizens of Chicago could vote for someone even more disgusting than Daley. In Jesse *******, they'd have accomplished that.

If Jackson were elected, it would be his first real job in his entire life and racism, what he has supposedly fought, would be at the forefront of Chicago, now, anti white racism. Don
 
Many, many people remember Mayor Harold Washington, and the Jayne Burn saga as well, and will not stand for a repeat.
Until things started to fall apart relatively recently, the Chicago Machine (Cook County Democratic Party) had things under control. People trusted the Chicago Machine to keep the lid on and until now it has always worked. The North Side and LaSalle Street crowds tolerated the criminality as a trade for security.
If there is to be a another black mayor someone will have to be found that is part of the machine and competent---that is not Jesse J or Bobby Rush.

But I have a better idea how about Valerie Jarrett for Mayor, Rahn E. for consigliere!
 
Being competent EXCLUDES you from the machine.

I have a slightly different take on your comment. These machine people are VERY competent, they're extremely competent crooks who usually manage to look like upstanding citizens. Don
 
I have a slightly different take on your comment. These machine people are VERY competent, they're extremely competent crooks who usually manage to look like upstanding citizens. Don
There's nothing even vaguely "upstanding" about any of them, even in appearance. It's just that when you're in a dung heap, being covered with crap looks normal.

Outside of Chicago, any of them would be recognized for the degenerate thugs they are.

Chicagoans really don't believe that there are places where the mob doesn't own city hall and the cops investigate home invasion robberies instead of committing them.
 
There's nothing even vaguely "upstanding" about any of them, even in appearance. It's just that when you're in a dung heap, being covered with crap looks normal.

Outside of Chicago, any of them would be recognized for the degenerate thugs they are.

Chicagoans really don't believe that there are places where the mob doesn't own city hall and the cops investigate home invasion robberies instead of committing them.

Guess I was trying some humor and being facetious. I have nothing but complete contempt for the Chicago Democratic machine. They've shafted the honest and facilitated the criminals for decades. They're a blight on America, pathetic that they've maintained control for so long. Don
 
Competent Criminals?

I don’t in general disagree with what cmort666 said about the Chicago Machine I do question this part;”Outside of Chicago, any of them would be recognized for the degenerate thugs they are.”
It seems to me that quite a few members of the Machine have migrated to DC where they are held in high esteem by the Main Stream Media and other so called elites.

IMO the Machine is the group in Chicago that many join to get ahead, the potential for big money and power is right there in the windy city.
As in any form of work (or crime), some people are a lot better at it than others. Play the game right and there is no end to the possibilities, you could even become POTUS.
I regret this as much as anyone, but the voters of Chicago and indeed the US don’t seem to mind.
 
A great post, Mr. Archer. I'm watching Skoien very carefully. The original decision is here [pdf].

Tom, thanks for your kind words...and thanks particularly for posting the opinion in Skoien. I had read a brief summary, but have now read the full text of the opinion.

Never rely on summaries!

I discovered that my original post was in error in some respects with regard to the 7th's Circuit's opinion in Skoien. My apologies.

A little background: Skoien was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. While on probation, he was found in possession of a shotgun, which he admitted was for hunting. He was charged with a violation of the so-called Lautenberg admendment, which prohibits those convicted of certain domestic violence charges from EVER possessing firearms, for any purpose. Under this federal law, there is no means by which one can restore one's 2nd Amendment rights. The amendment was previously upheld by the 7th Circuit (pre-Heller), which then viewed the 2nd Amendment as a collective, not individual right. Skoien challenged the law after Heller, so a three judge panel of the 7th Circuit had to reconsider whether the Lautenberg amendment ran afoul of the Skoien's indiviudal 2nd Amendment rights.

Specifically, I misunderstood the case's disposition. I thought the 7th had applied intermediate scrutiny and then found against Skoien.

Not correct. Skoien's Lautenberg conviction was vacated and the case remanded. The government was given guidance as to its burden of proof (more below) and instructed to meet it. If it can meet that burden of proof, then Skoien's conviction could be re-instated.

But, for our purposes, a little more detail is in order:

The 7th Circuit noted that in Heller, the US Supreme Court did not establish the standard by which challenged laws would be reviewed under the 2nd Amendment. However, Heller did reject "rational basis review" , the lowest standard. The 7th Circuit concluded that a more exacting standard should be adopted.

After much discussion of case law regarding standards of review, the 7th Circuit concluded that when the core right of the 2nd Amendment--armed self defense--was implicated in a challenge to a law, the standard of review would be strict scrutiny (where the law must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest). This is the most difficult level of review, often "fatal" to challenged laws, as the 7th Circuit opinion observed.

Importantly, with strict scrutiny, the burden is on the government to show that the law is, in fact, narrowly tailored to that compelling interest. In other words, the burden is NOT on the challenger to show that the law is NOT narrowly tailored or that the government's interest is not, indeed, compelling.

However, the 7th Circuit also concluded that where the challenged law does NOT implicate that core self defense right, than a form of "intermediate" review should be applied to the challenged law. This gets a little tricky...

Rather than try to paraphrase (and maybe get something wrong), here's what the 7th Circuit said:

...for gun laws that do not severely burden the core Second Amendment right of self-defense there need only be a “reasonable fit” between an important governmental end and the regulatory means chosen by the government to serve that end. See Fox, 492 U.S. at 480. This “require the government goal to be substantial, and the cost to be carefully calculated.” Id. The inquiry tests whether the regulation’s “scope is in proportion to the interest served,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), but also accounts for“the difficulty of establishing with precision the pointat which restrictions become more extensive than their objective requires,” id. at 481....(t)he government “bears the burden of justifying its restrictions, [and] it must affirmatively establish the reasonable fit” that the test requires. Fox,492 U.S. at 480 (internal citation omitted). In other words, “the public benefits of the restrictions must be established by evidence, and not just asserted[;] . . . .lawyers’ talk is insufficient.” Annex Books, 581 F.3d at 463."

So, having established the government's burden of proof (which is quite high, requiring evidence, and not mere assertions), the 7th Circuit remanded the case back down to the District Court. If the government is able to meet its burden, then Skoien will lose.

Nevertheless, the government appealed for rehearing by the entire 7th Circuit (remember, the above decision was unanimous, but was made by a three judge panel).

Whatever the entire 7th Circuit ultimately rules, its decision will be looked to by other courts for guidance (just as the 7th looked to how other federal district and appellate courts were analysing 2nd Amendment cases since Heller).

And, if other Circuits come up with different conclusions (which is likely), the stage will be set for the US Supreme Court to address the vital standard of review question. One of the criteria the Supreme Court uses when deciding to take a case is whether there is a split of opinon among the federal appellate courts. All this will take quite awhile, likely years.

If you are really interested in how 2nd Amendment caselaw may evolve, it is instructive to see how this federal Court of Appeals really tried to apply Heller to a case before it.

Having finally read the whole opinion, in my view, we would be very lucky indeed if the Supreme Court ultimately adopts the standards of review as articulated by the 7th Circuit panel in Skoien. And, until that happens, we would be lucky if other federal district and appellate courts follow the lead of this panel.

Heller and McDonald are promising, but just the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Having finally read the whole opinion, in my view, we would be very lucky indeed if the Supreme Court ultimately adopts the standards of review as articulated by the 7th Circuit panel in Skoien. And, until that happens, we would be lucky if other federal district and appellate courts follow the lead of this panel.
My only concern with Skoien was the differentiation between "core" and "not-so-core" right, but Heller was their only guidepost at the time. All things considered, it was a gutsy call for the 7th to make, and hopefully their opinion will be influential.

One of the breadcrumbs Alito left us with is this:

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. [Majority Opinion, p. 31]

That last phrase echoes Palko, and in finding the right to keep and bear arms "fundamental [to] ordered liberty," Alito has all but guaranteed strict scrutiny.

Now, that's strict scrutiny for laws that ban handguns in the home. Other aspects of the 2nd Amendment will likely require their own suits and judgments.

Still, our foot's in the door, and we're off to a good start.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top