Bob Barr on the McDonald Case

Of Arms and the Law alerts us to a piece by Bob Barr on the McDonald case and the Starbucks "controversy" here. As to the latter, my wife, when reading a crawl on the subject on Fox News last night just laughed. How controversial can it be that Starbucks wants to follow the law? The Brady's are trying to make a sand pebble seem like a sand dune. In any case, support Starbucks to the degree you can, and let them know you are doing so because they are supporting you.

As for McDonald, Barr says:

While Supreme Court observers appear uniformly to consider that Chicago’s handgun ban will be invalidated, constitutional lawyers were more interested in the grounds on which the High Court might base its expected decision. Would the High Court frame its decision narrowly, as urged by the National Rifle Association, for example? Or might the Court take the more unusual step of using the Chicago case to establish that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental “privilege or immunity” (in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment)? The latter would make it more difficult for states and even the federal government to impose significant restrictions on future exercise of the Second Amendment’s guarantees.

The smart money is that the Court will throw out Chicago’s gun ban, but on narrower rather than broader grounds. I would prefer the broader, more constitutionally-honest approach, but I don’t anticipate being pleasantly surprised when the Court’s opinion is released later this spring.

So here is another opinion that the Court won't have the guts to do what needs to be done here. Too bad.