The rule of law is kind of a joke

Ain't they just cute in how they make shit up as they go along?

Chicago and Oak Park are poorly placed to make these arguments. After all, Illinois has not abolished self-defense and has not expressed a preference for long guns over handguns. But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."); Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40-53 (1978) (Powell, J., dissenting) (arguing that only "fundamental" liberties Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 9 should be incorporated, and that even for incorporated amendments the state and federal rules may differ); Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon. How arguments of this kind will affect proposals to "incorporate" the second amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of appeals.

Yeah, try that with the first amendment, which specifically begins with "Congress," leaving it obvious to everyone, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the founding fathers were specifically limiting the power of Congress to pass laws limiting freedom of religion and speech or to establish a state religion. The second amendment ends with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet curiously, that generically worded amendment is not incorporated against local and state legal codes. Well, I guess Congress, state legislatures, city council... ehhhh what's the difference among friends, right?

To defend this court's reasoning, one would have to forget the fact that pure federalism died in the Constitution with the 14th amendment. The United States has been, since then, a semi-unitary state. The desirability of that has no bearing on the legal fact that 14th amendment changed the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the states. Second, to defend their logic, one would have to ignore the fact that cities like Chicago make it de facto, if not de jure, impossible for a reasonable person to exercise their second amendment rights. Here's a modest experiment for these judges: try to open carry a firearm in Chicago. Even with a state license. Sling a rifle over your shoulder or put a .45 on your belt, and walk around town. If you do that for a few hours without being slammed face first into a police cruiser by the Chicago PD who will cheerfully ignore your permit on "because we don't want you carrying a weapon mmmmkay" grounds, I'll gladly change my mind.

Of course, it won't happen because judges rarely take into consideration the facts on the ground. They can seriously look at a stack of laws and regulations that, taken as a whole, would require you to do the equivalent of walking barefoot on fresh piano wire over a flaming pit of napalm while facing off against a hungry pack of rabid wolves in order to exercise your constitutional rights and cheerfully respond, "well they didn't outright prohibit it, so... it's constitutional."