The Chicagoist gets it wrong.

The Chicagoist has this piece that was written just before the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald v Chicago.

"The City of Chicago is preparing for today's ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on the handgun ban as the court issues its opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. (The city of Oak Park also has its handgun ban at issue with the case.)"

Chicago just has a mind set of it's own. They don't get it, this case goes beyond Chicago and beyond Oak Park. The Supreme Court is not ruling, "Chicago can't ban guns." or "Oak Park can't ban guns." This ruling goes against every gun ban in every city and every State. When they opined that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States, that incorporates the definition given in Heller.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation."-D.C. v. Heller

SCOTUS Opines 5-4 for Incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago

This should have been a unanimous decision.

"JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."

The opinion is here.

Questions:

Does this mean "Constitutional Carry" for all states?

First the SC confirms that the 2nd is an individual right to keep and bear.

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual right to keep and bear arms."-Heller

Then the definition of the operative clause indicates the purpose of carrying arms for defense in case of confrontation.  The SC did not give a specific definition of when and where the carrying of arms would be prohibited or if it could be prohibited.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”-Heller

Does this effect the NFA or the Gun Control Act?

Can a State or municipality prohibit the possession of automatic weapons?
If a State or municipal law prohibiting a handgun is unconstitutional, how could a state law prohibiting any type or class of weapon stand?

Illinois law prohibits automatic weapons(machine guns)-

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
"(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for

the purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less

than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall lengt(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:h of less than 26 inches;"-720 ILCS 5/24‑1

Democrats in Their Own Words

I tried to come up with an opening staement for this, but it just explains itself so well.  I'll let the Democrats speak for themselves.....

"No one likes paying taxes, particularly abusive taxes with no accountability, but they are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society."-Illinois Democrats

 At least the Illinois Democrats are honest about how they are abusive and unaccountable with tax dollars.

"If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. "-Illinois Democrats

 "Our view: we’re all equal—each and every one of us, no matter what we look like or believe in or don’t believe—as long as we don’t legislate or mandate or somehow force our views on others."-Illinois Democrat

 I see, they are allowed their views, they just won't tolerate a conservative Christian view.  In fact they ridicule, make snide remarks, and  file lawsuits because our views "offend" them.  Democrats-the party of equality and tolerance.  It seems they are open and welcoming to every view or religion EXCEPT Christianity.

"We’re pro-life as much as the religious extremists but we believe it’s a woman’s right to choose to give life."-Illinois Democrats

  Yeah, we just think the decision is made before the bedroom activities.

"They fight paper trails that would assure fair and honest elections."-Illinois Democrats

 Who was that undocumented worker in the White House?  Oh, thats right, Obama is the name.  How much money did he spend fighting the paper trail of his birth?

"They don’t question outsourcing valuable American jobs to China, India, Mexico, and elsewhere."-Illinois Democrats

By "they" I think they mean Conservative Republicans.  Have these Democrats looked outside their Chicago office in the last couple of decades?  Seriously, democrats haven't seen any Republican opposition to moving jobs out of the Country?

I guess Democrats don't question it either, they encourage it through the above mentioned "particularly abusive taxes with no accountability" that "are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society".

"Our view: We don’t like labels. We don’t fear those who are different. We like and welcome diversity. Our fragile democracy cannot survive with hatemongering and lying in the name of false “patriotism.” The extremes of fascism and communism are about people who blame others for their problems and want everyone to believe, behave, and look like themselves. That’s not us.”- Illinois Democrats

"WE CAN’T SIT IDLY BY WHILE THEY TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY
If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. We must tell President Obama again and again he can’t be Mr. Nice Guy. The Republicans are the party of “No.” they’ve become the party of Tea-Baggers. They will never ever allow Obama a victory of any sort, no matter how good it may be for the country as a whole."-Illinois Democrats

So who was it that came up with these:

1. extremists
2. ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists
3. neo-conservatives
4. distorted values
5. egocentric viewpoints
6. Republicans are the party of “No.”
7. the party of Tea-Baggers
Seven labels in the opening paragraph of the article, I would hate to imagine that paragraph if they liked labels and fear mongering.

"They assure that their industries are too big to fail."-Illinois Democrats

 This has to be the funniest one, these guys don't know the Democrats came up with the "to big to fail" idea.

 This just goes on and on, not just in the examples of this ONE article.  Yes, all these are from one article posted at IL-democrats.org.  Look around at other media sources and you will find more of the same.