This is a no-brainer according to the current interpretation of the Constitution, and recent precedent. State law cannot override federal protections, and with the recent tearing down of the DC handgun ban, it seems obvious where the High Court stands on the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Except, the Court has changed since then.

In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it is asking the court to overturn the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases. Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If overturned, the Selective Incorporation process would be moot and unnecessary, as the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would be applied against the states.

In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case has garnered the attention and support of liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest is that if Slaughter-House is overturned, it is possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would be applied against the states automatically.

'libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don’t like.'

Except, the Court has changed since then.

I was sure that this was going to be something about trans-fats when I clicked it.

I will have NO MOCKERY in this thread! I insist we reserve such tom-foolery to threads you... I mean, other threads.

So can the city of Chicago argue that the first and fourth amendments do not apply in the city limits?

Is Chicago not incorporated?

Actually, yes. It is.

I know about this much -->||<-- about the city itself, and Khross' comments lead me to believe that they are not incorporated.

Things I know about Chicago:
It is in Illinois
It is on the shore of Lake Michigan
The Bears play there.
They have two equally shitty baseball teams
They filmed The Negotiator there
It is very windy

Aside from that... Yeah. That's about it.

Is Chicago not incorporated?

hEH, TRUE. wHAT THEY DO CAN BE MORE APTLY DESCRIBED AS SUCK. Bloody capslock. Bah!

I suppose there are worse things in life than being a Bears fan, for example you could be a Seahawks fan. Hehe.

How about douchebaggery? Can we have that?

Yes, but only after 6:00 PM on weekdays. Weekends, of course, are good too.