Well, well, this will give the gun nuts some more fuel for their fires! Should keep them busy with all kinds of conspiracy theories — the case won’t be argued until next year.
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.
The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.
The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.
fnord
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
This case got there a bit faster than I thought. The question involved is not unexpected; the speed was, by me.
We are for state and local rights, except when we’re not.
sarcasm/
I do have a question, 6176. If either Ginsberg or Stevens (maybe both) are replaced, how quickly could that happen?
I’ve read where some are saying Sotomayor may have to sit out this case. Of course, others say she wouldn’t.
Guess there will be much to speculate about, huh?
Fnord, the question on recusal is close. I personally believe she should, even if not technically required.
Speed of replacements: it seems to me that both said justices will do their best to complete the new term. Thus, any replacements would be done over the summer, 2010. Should either or both be forced by illness, etc., to retire early, I don’t know. It would be dependent upon the nominee, how fast the Senate would act.
Thanks, 6176. What IF Justice Ginsberg’s health deteriorates badly sooner?
I also see where the Supremes will be considering parts of The Patriot Act. Next year will be a big one for them!
Well, fnord, there is precedent for the Court to move forward with 8 Justices until the current term is completed; and, in other cases, a mid-term appointment was made. Given the issues before the Court, I could see either occurring, with my money on going forward with 8.
Chicago is an interesting example of how gun laws seem to not be effective, inasmuch the murder rate is awful. I will bet though, the laws allow for police to take a lot of discovered guns out of the hands of many.
Are any guns or ammunition manufactured (legally) in the state of Illinois?
Ordinary crime involving a gun can often involve the feds and more serious federal charges here in Kansas where every gun and all ammunition came across (at least) state lines to get here. There are none manufactured inside this state, not even any of the parts needed for either a gun or ammunition (legally)! Sometimes LE wants to go for potentially harsher penalties and this is the path to get it done!
It is a point I have tried to make several times but the others will not listen.
Local can make a law more restrictive then the Federals do, but it can not be leaner that a Federal law.
This is where the problem is coming, The can not restrict ownership, but that leaves the question of if the locals can. It is separate from the question of carrying a weapon. Mere ownership may not be banned, but the locals can pass law that restrict how they are kept and stored. There might even be a possible restriction that fit within the 2nd amendment that states the weapon be locked away in a secure location such as in a lock box in the bank.
But yeah these laws are for the most part ineffective, criminals by the very nature do not obey the law.
The NRA is assured by the DC decision to have a 5-4 SCOTUS majority. I’m sure CONs on the court greased the skids to quash the Chicago ordinance.