NY Times article on incorporation

[trashman]

...hat tip to David Hardy. As he notes, the piece is actually almost neutral.

--Neill

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17guns.html

A year ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision establishing the constitutional right of Americans to own guns. But the justices did not explain what the practical effect of that ruling would be on city and state gun laws.

Some experts predict gun rights could be expanded.



Could a city still ban handguns? The justices said the District of Columbia could not, but only because it is a special federal district. The question of the constitutionality of existing city and state gun laws was left unanswered.


That left a large vacuum for the lower courts to fill. Supporters of gun rights filed a flurry of lawsuits to strike down local gun restrictions, and now federal appeals courts have begun weighing in on this divisive issue, using very different reasoning.

[hoffmang]

Though I do love the "automatic weapons" mistake...

-Gene

[GoodEyeSniper]

This story actually makes me very happy. It reported on a wide range of issues going on right now, and their background, without getting into TOO much detail which would just make the average person bored or confused.

I don't think they could've done better, to tell you the truth. Perfect intro for a major name in news. It's no news to us on calguns, but it's an easy story to link to friends who couldn't care less about the more in depth incorporation stuff I find myself reading :43:

[navyinrwanda]

Though I do love the "automatic weapons" mistake...

-Gene
And "concealed handguns", too.

I guess tossing those sorts of incendiary terms around helps keep the NY Times afloat...

[bigcalidave]

The right of states to make their own decisions on such matters, Judge Easterbrook wrote, “is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.”

I didn't read too much on the chicago hearing, but isn't the 2nd amendment an older and more deeply rooted tradition than the 10th? Shouldn't judges care what the damn law says! ? ! Shouldn't the word of law be more important than "deeply rooted tradition" ?

[dexter9659]

Though I do love the "automatic weapons" mistake...

-Gene

Im a bit surprised it didn't read "concealed automatic weapons"

[RomanDad]

Though I do love the "automatic weapons" mistake...

-Gene

God... You would think if you were going to BOTHER to write an article about a law, you would get the underlying facts right?

[popeye4]

God... You would think if you were going to BOTHER to write an article about a law, you would get the underlying facts right?

The New York Times???? Surely you jest...... :43:

[DDT]

I didn't read too much on the chicago hearing, but isn't the 2nd amendment an older and more deeply rooted tradition than the 10th? Shouldn't judges care what the damn law says! ? ! Shouldn't the word of law be more important than "deeply rooted tradition" ?

He was simply looking for an excuse to vote against 2A do you really think he's a strong States' rights advocate?

This may have flown before the 14th amendment but not any longer.

And, the States were all states before they joined the union and state (as opposed to State) sovereignty I would suggest has a long history that is indistinguishable from the right to bear arms. I only say indistinguishable because the concept of a "right" must have developed hand in hand with the concept of a social structure and people were armed before there was a social structure so surely the right to arms was one of the very first rights.

[DDT]

Im a bit surprised it didn't read "concealed automatic weapons"

perhaps "deadly, concealed automatic weapons"

[Librarian]

One of the commenters at Hardy's site already emailed the author, with a positive response.

[Glock22Fan]

perhaps "deadly, concealed automatic weapons"

"deadly, concealed automatic assault weapons"

Might even sneak ".50 caliber" and "designed to shoot down airliners and spaceships and kill cops and innocent civilians" in there somewhere.

[Sobriquet]

"deadly, concealed automatic assault weapons"

Might even sneak ".50 caliber" and "designed to shoot down airliners and spaceships and kill cops and innocent civilians" in there somewhere.

you forgot "high powered."

[DDT]

"deadly, concealed automatic assault weapons"

Might even sneak ".50 caliber" and "designed to shoot down airliners and spaceships and kill cops and innocent civilians" in there somewhere.

and with lasers too. You know, those can blind pilots 20,000' up in the air.

[navyinrwanda]

I couldn't resist asking John Schwartz, the NY Times reporter, why he included "automatic weapons" and "concealed handguns" in this article. Here's his response:
Thank you for your note. I did not mean to use terms that are incendiary -- the question in the piece is purely about Second Amendment incorporation, with no intention of inflaming the argument. I don't know where all of the land mines are in the gun argument, since I generally don't write about these issues, but I will keep it in mind in the future.

[RomanDad]

The New York Times???? Surely you jest...... :43:

I'm not jesting....

And please don't call me Shirley.:)

I couldn't resist asking John Schwartz, the NY Times reporter, why he included "automatic weapons" and "concealed handguns" in this article. Here's his response:


Would somebody tell him the Chicago ban simply bans all handguns.... PERIOD.... it has nothing to do with "Automatic handguns" or "Concealed handguns". You of course cant have either of those either since they are both subsets of the larger group, HANDGUNS. But thats like saying the law restricts "invisible handguns" and "death ray handguns", since both of those imaginary creatures would also be banned under the larger umbrella of ALL HANDGUNS.

[trashman]

I'm not jesting....

And please don't call me Shirley.:)

I just want to let you know, that we're all counting on you...

--Neill

[lioneaglegriffin]

I just want to let you know, that we're all counting on you...

--Neill

Airplane? the shirley thing was in COD4 too.

[navyinrwanda]

Would somebody tell him the Chicago ban simply bans all handguns.... PERIOD.... it has nothing to do with "Automatic handguns" or "Concealed handguns". You of course cant have either of those either since they are both subsets of the larger group, HANDGUNS. But thats like saying the law restricts "invisible handguns" and "death ray handguns", since both of those imaginary creatures would also be banned under the larger umbrella of ALL HANDGUNS.
The Chicago Municipal Code in question (§ 8-20-050) prohibits registration of lots of things besides handguns, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and assault weapons (as defined). Other parts of the same chapter also prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons and the possession of "laser sights."

Of course, none of these were at issue in McDonald v Chicago. I pointed out this inconsistency in my email to Mr. Schwartz. I was also planning to send him a follow-up note politely explaining how he "inflamed the argument."

Here's his email address if anyone else would like to write to him: jswatz@nytimes.com