Ilya is correct that the Second Amendment isn't yet completely secure. Ilya is also correct to predict "substantial practical impact," although, the "impact" planned in Chicago is, I believe, exactly OPOSITE of what the Court intended.
In comment, both to that post and here, I wrote of my fears of what Daley would do to "get around" McDonald v. Chicago, and I predicted that his "reasonable restrictions" would be less than reasonable…
From the Chicago Tribune:
Each qualified gun owner in a home could have only one handgun under a new ordinance being drawn up that could be heard by the City Council Police and Fire Committee as soon as Thursday, officials said. The ordinance would require handgun owners to register their weapons with the Police Department and keep them secured inside the home.
The measure also likely would force gun owners to take safety training classes, undergo a criminal background check and obtain liability insurance, city officials said. City Hall also is mulling a formal ban on gun shops, said Mara Georges, the city's top attorney.
"Reducing the number of handguns in Chicago is critical to public safety," Georges said. "The same concerns that motivate a one handgun per person per residence limit — reducing the number of guns in circulation in Chicago and the risk of illegal traffic in guns — motivate the gun dealer ban."
First- keeping guns secured inside the home is a DIRECT AND BLATANT violation of DC v Heller…
Second- Being required to obtain liability insurance to exercise your SECOND Amendment Rights would be NO DIFFERENT from being required to obtain SLANDER insurance to exercise your FIRST Amendment Rights…
Third- Criminal Background Checks are ALREADY required under federal law- don't make it sound like it is YOUR idea, Mayor Daley.
Fourth- BANNING GUN DEALERS is an illegal restraint of lawful trade in my humble opinion. They are talking "DEALERS" here, which would seem include the private FFL holder.
Fifth- If DALEY really thinks there should be a ONE firearm limit to the Second Amendment, then I propose that his FIRST Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech be limited to ONE SPEECH per decade... (that actually is not a bad idea-- he really should just sit down and shut up).
The only thing not mentioned by the Chicago Tribune was how much you would have to
Of course, Chicago will say this is all very reasonable-- After all a ZERO gun limit to ONE gun limit is a 100% increase- how much more reasonable can they be????
GET A CLUE MAYOR DALEY-- YOU LOST! THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FUNDEMENTAL AND APPLIES TO CHICAGO-- NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!
Oh, how I hate being right when I make predictions of what extremes the left will go to...