Another possible reason for the LAT story on NRA v. Chicago

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Nairda2000 says:

    I’d disagree in part with your observation, because its only the last part of the road to incorporation of the 2A (i.e., the road through the SCOTUS itself) that most observers believed would be easy (this belief being based on the footnote in Heller where Scalia observed that the existing SCOTUS precedent holding against incorporation of the 2A did not engage in the 14A due process analysis required by later SCOTUS cases).

    Given that there is binding SCOTUS precedent stating that the 2A is not incorporated (as both the second circuit and the seventh circuit have recently noted), if anything, it was the ninth circuit decision FOR incorporation, that was surprising.

  2. It’s not so much that there’s binding SCOTUS prcedent that the 2nd amendment isn’t incorporated, so much as that there’s precedent the lower courts can so interpret if they want to. The problem is, they want to. Wouldn’t have all these circuit court precedents against the 2nd guaranteeing an individual right, otherwise, as none of the Supreme court rulings they nominally rely upon back them up on that score.

    So, yeah, it might or might not be a slam dunk at the Supreme court level, but nobody expected it to be one lower down.