4 thoughts on “Old McDonald had a gun?”

  1. They still didn’t address the 21 years old to buy a handgun.

    Then theres those of us stick in the 9th circuit who basically require a supreme court case which means a couple years till we get more rights.

    I’m just afraid the weakness of this decision isn’t because the the conservatives had to bend over to Stevens so they could just get the handgun bans turned over and those of us stuck in California are stuck with anything below 10 rounds and magazine disconnect which only people from Brady Campaign need.

  2. 21 to buy a handgun? Whoa! What? 9th Circuit?

    I am completely confused. Is this some strange mixing of state and federal law that I hear at gun shops? Is this some notion that the Supreme Court is not court of common gripes?

    The issue in McDonald was a CHICAGO city ordinance which was at issue. 21 to buy a handgun was a FFL is a FEDERAL law which was not the issue presented. California law was not the issue presented.

    Bend over to Stevens? What? Did you read Scalia spanking the old moron Stevens? Stevens’ dissent made no sense. I have read posts at Democratic Underground at 3AM about Haliburton and its Weather Machine which make more sense than Justice Stevens.

    McDonald is just the tip of the iceberg. Now that the door is open California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey will all walk in.

  3. Hey – the 9th is the circuit that found the 2A *was* incorporated against the states, prior to Heller. (The pro-rights side still lost the case in question, mind). The decision was rendered moot by the filing of McDonald, however; but still.

    Anyway – we have to wait for the 7th to deal with the remand before much else moves forward

  4. My though on reading Steven’s dissents was,

    C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la loi.

Comments are closed.