Quote of the Day

There is a very strong possibility that the Court of Appeals will rule against us, not on the merits of the case (which is very strong), but because finding that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment against the states is a decision above their pay grade. - Clayton Cramer in his post Chicago Gun Case

And I think he's more than probably right. I'm reminded of 9^th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent in the denial to re-hear en banc the Silveira v. Lockyer case, specifically this part:

As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

Even when it was.

There exists Supreme Court precedent that says that the right of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' is not protected against state infringement, but only against infringement by Congress - i.e.: the Federal government (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1875). Cruikshank was decided after ratification of the 14^th Amendment, and while it violates the specific, written intent of that amendment, it has never been overturned by the Supreme Court, and it has been used as precedent in an 1886 case, Presser v. Illinois.

And inferior courts may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

So don't be surprised if the 7^th Circuit finds against us; be stunned if they don't. Because that will force the Supreme Court to revisit Cruikshank, and I doubt seriously the 7^th Circuit has the testicular fortitude to do that.