The Chicago Gun Case

The fact that the gun control issue is associated with seemingly inconsistent flips of position between conservative and liberal viewpoints suggests that the conservative vs. liberal dichotomy isn't particularly useful in analyzing this issue. Maybe it's more a matter of personality, involving other dichotomies:

Bellicose vs. Pacific
Paranoid vs. Cautious
Testosterone vs. Serotonin
Eye For Eye vs. Turn the Cheek
Mine vs. Ours
Don't Tread On Me vs. E Pluribus Unum

Your question: Who can regulate gun laws, Federal, State or Local governments? ANSWER: NONE OF THE ABOVE. What is it about, "shall NOT be infringed." the legal community and gov't can't understand. The way the corrupt judges have violated their oaths to uphold the US Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" is prima facie evidence of their corruption.

The 14th Amendment is not and never was needed to "incorporate" the BOR against the individual states. The original text of the US Constitution contained language "incorporating" it entirely against the states. Simply read Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 and Section VI. You know phrases like, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." And, "This Constitution,..., shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...."

Plus, all the States were required to "ratify" the US Constitution. Why be required to ratify something if you're NOT being required to comply with it?

If SCOTUS rules against incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, it will have to go against all the other incorporation cases it has decided the last century or so. And, it will be prima facie evidence of Judicial Activism on the nation's highest court (oh, we already have evidence of that don't we!).

The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than legal quackery perpetrated by corrupt judges so they could rationalize their violation of both the US Constitution and their Oaths to uphold it as the "supreme law of the land."

And the Justice system has the power to punish citizens for "contempt of court"? My question is, "Just how the hell can any Freedom-loving American have anything but contempt for our courts these days."

And the SCOTUS' BS ruling that "the 2nd Amendment can be reasonably restricted" is just that -- BS. What does, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean?

I'm Hal from Thetford, or "Hall from Bedford" as Laura introduced me. ;)

I regret that in response to her question about states and localities enacting firearm restrictions I failed to point out that here in VT we have no "gun control" laws and that's worked out pretty well. We are consistently the state with the lowest or second lowest rate of violent crime.

If in the future Laura has guests who, like Mr. Lowy, try to argue that the 2nd Amendment describes some sort of collective right she should ask, "So, if the Amendment read, 'A well educated electorate, being necessary for the functioning of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed", would you argue that only government libraries and schools should be allowed to stock books?" That this chimera continues to be repeated as true detracts from the real issue.