Gun Rights - Expanding?

It seems unbelievable, but the Tribune had not one, but two separate recent editorials that outline how gun rights might finally make there way back to Illinois in general, and Chicago specifically.

First up, Steve Chapman (we'll link his post at RealClearPolitics):

• For nearly 70 years, the Second Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions -- missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. [...] But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
• Even some liberal constitutional experts now agree that gun ownership enjoys constitutional protection. The most notable is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who once subscribed to the collective rights theory. The amendment, he writes, recognizes "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes." The appeals court agreed, striking down D.C.'s prohibition of handguns in the home, as well as regulations on other guns.
• It would be a stunning turnabout if the Supreme Court adopts that view. It would remove some of the most extreme laws from the books -- such as the virtually total ban on handguns in Chicago and some suburban communities. Gun rights advocates would feel sweet vindication.

Next up is Dennis Byrne:

• Our good and well-meaning friends in Chicago, Wilmette and other towns that have outlawed the possession of handguns, even in the sanctity and privacy of the home, might want to notice that the nation's second-highest court has tossed out a similar weapons ban.
• This doesn't mean that the D.C. decision applies here, but the conflicting rulings invite the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, where three sitting justices--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter--said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.
• I'd add this to what the court said: Arguing that you have only a "collective" right to bear arms as part of a militia is as ludicrous as saying that the Bill of Rights protects your free speech rights only as a part of a larger group, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ginsburg and Souter, two of the courts more liberal leaning members already have written that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right. Combined with the more strict constructionists/originalists currently leading the Court, we might be living in some very interesting times shortly. No wonder the mayor is pushing so hard downstate for the gun registration and bans - he wants to frighten as many people as possible before the Supreme Court strikes down any number of gun laws.

(Thanks to SecondCitySarge for the initial link to Chapman's article - we ran across the Byrne article on our own)