A broad spectrum of scholars and advocacy groups agreed that McDonald v. City of Chicago presented the best -- and possibly the last -- chance to revive the argument that the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause was the soundest way to apply individual rights like the Second Amendment right to bear arms to states and localities. And after the entire movement seemed to crash and burn in the space of a dramatic few minutes at the Supreme Court, there has been remarkably little regret or recrimination.
March 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Across a broad spectrum of scholars and advocacy groups, it was agreed that the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago presented the best — and possibly the last — chance to revive the argument that the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment was the soundest way to apply individual rights like the Second Amendment right to bear arms to states and localities.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
