McDonald v Chicago outcome?
March 22, 2011 8:42 AM   Subscribe

What are the practical consequences of McDonald v. Chicago?

I am curious if anything has resulted from the above court case, meaning can I have a pistol of any type in the city now, or am I likely to be able to in the future?
posted by adamdschneider to Law & Government (2 answers total)
The City Council passed a new gun ordinance after the decision. The sale of guns is still banned in the city, so you'd have to buy from elsewhere. You can own a handgun, but you can't carry it anywhere (concealed or otherwise) outside your home.
posted by enn at 8:49 AM on March 22, 2011

well, generally, practically speaking, nothing changes until the court takes the remand, rerules and then the legislature reacts. The legislature will almost certainly put in all sorts of purchase restrictions/requirements, licensing/permitting, and they will likely try again, worded differently, to limit ownership, possession, and carrying. As noted above, the City Council already reacted.

SCOTUS opinion in pdf here, other relevant docs at SCOTUS blog. LawProfs discuss it here. Sentencing Law and Policy rounds up the likely interesting post-McDonald litigation here. Sentencing Law & Policy is specifically looking at how state and local gun control and regulation might happen in the post-McDonald paradigm.

Cardozo law review online discussed some possible (legal not practical) implications (prior to argument) here.
posted by crush-onastick at 8:59 AM on March 22, 2011

« Older Damn You Alfred Hitchcock!   |   Should I get an air source heat pump Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.