McClatchy Leans Towards Chicago?

McClatchy News has an article on their website previewing tomorrow's oral arguments in the McDonald v Chicago case, which challenges the city's ban on private handgun possession. Amidst a smattering of tiring firearms metaphors ("in the crosshairs", "restrictions will be blown away", "test-fire arguments") and the assertion that the Conservative Justices will "stretch the Second Amendment further", there is a curious representation of an important amicus brief. The attorneys-general of 37 states filed in support of McDonald et al, stating that states should not have the ability to deprive citizens of the right to own a handgun. McClatchy wrote:

The attorneys general for Florida, Texas, Alaska and 34 other states have urged the court to strike down Chicago's gun ban. So have a majority of members of Congress, and individual prosecutors from 34 California counties.

Think there is a little bias there? I believe that Florida, Texas, and Alaska are being specifically named in a pejorative way. Those states are known as being quite gun friendly, and their citizens and politicians are often the ire of people with liberal and/or anti-gun persuasions. I wonder why Doyle didn't choose to call out Wisconsin, Maine, and Rhode Island? They all signed on. Or maybe Washington, Virginia, and Minnesota? Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio? I suppose that wouldn't quite fit their us vs. them, blue state vs. red state, liberal vs. conservative frame of mind. The truth is, the issue of gun rights has been transcending party lines for decades and this case, with its due process and privileges and immunities implications, has supporters from across the political spectrum.