Supreme Court of the United States to Hear National Rifle Association v. Chicago/McDonald v. Chicago

quilandink1The fall session of the Supreme Court of the United States begins today.  One issue before the bar will be a little known aspect of the rule of law as pertains to the Second Amendment.  The issue revolves around legislation passed over a century ago in the aftermath of the American Civil War. 

Said legislation attempted to disable the right to bear arms as federally protected and subject it to local ordinance.  Until recent years, this little known aspect of the law was not nearly as threatening as it has become today.  It has become a hindrance to the 2nd Amendment in this day and time due to overzealous attempts by liberals to outlaw legitimate gun ownership.  It was this legislation which allowed the current gun bans in various cities to occur in the first place.  As the Supreme Court moves into its 2009-2010 session, it has agreed to hear a case on this issue that will have far reaching and potentially fantastic – or devastating – consequences for our Constitutional rights.

This latest case to come before our highest bench is a very important case, and it is deserving of our intense scrutiny.  It will determine the right of an individual to exercise his Constitutional right – versus a city or state who is in opposition to that same right.  It is very similar in nature to District of Columbia. v.. Heller, a recent case which struck down a handgun ban in the Washington D.C. district, which was a victory for gun owners by only one vote.

In that instance, the high court ruled that Washington hand gun bans were unconstitutional and home owners did indeed have a right to have a gun in their home for self defense.  That settled that issue for Washington proper, but not for the rest of the nation.

What has the potential to red flag this case for supporters of Constitutional rights, is simply this: The right for Washitonians to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was barely upheld.  As the 5-4 victory for gun owners in that case clearly shows – it was close, too close. One justice carried the day for a vital fundamental liberty.  

And this case only applied to the District of Columbia, aka: Washington.  This new case has vastly far more reaching impact because it affects the entire nation, not just one federal district that is not even a state in the first place. There is a lot more here on the line, nationwide – not just in one small corner of our nation’s capital. 

If advocates for the Second Amendment succeed here, this will strike a devastating blow to the far left liberal wing’s anti-constitutional efforts to strip Americans of this most basic, but fundamental freedom.  On the other hand, if a fickle wind blows and the Justices fail to uphold the right of the individual; this will be an equally devastating blow to our rights as Americans, nationwide.

Nevertheless, the good news is that in spite of the very controversial recent appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, not much has really changed in the balance of power on the bench at SCOTUS.  The five esteemed Justices, who upheld the Constitution for citizens of Washington in the District of Columbia, are still on the bench to hear this latest case. And this case was not brought about by gun control zealots. 

On the contrary: It was brought about by the National Rifle Association, and gun owners, and advocates of the right to bear arms such as attorney Alan Gura, who won success for the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, and is representing in this case, as well.

The new case to come before our highest court this session will no doubt also be greatly aided by Mr. Gura’s expertise and experience, and thankfully, the power of the NRA will come to full swing here also in rallying support for this case. 

Because the case at issue now is National Rifle Association v. Chicago/McDonald v. Chicago.  And it comes to light on behalf of among others, gun owner Otis McDonald, who wishes to exercise his right to bear arms and keep a firearm for protection in his home, in the wake of threats against his life levied by local Chicago drug dealers.  Another extremely interesting aspect of this particular case, is that is seeks to buttress all rights for individuals versus the state, under the protection of another Constitutional right, the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The 14th Amendment is to insure that states do not override Constitutional freedoms.  Here is a quote from an article on this case and the 14th Amendment aspect:

The gun rights cause is not limited to conservatives. Libertarians and some self-proclaimed progressives say the court should rule that the Bill of Rights’ protections are a privilege of U.S citizenship….The 14th Amendment says that states may not “abridge the privileges” of a U.S. citizen. At the time the amendment was written, this was seen as extending the rights — such as freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches — to protect citizens against state and local officials. However, the Supreme Court disagreed in 1873, and this provision was left unenforceable….In the Chicago case, the justices agreed to rule on whether the 2nd Amendment and its right “to keep and bear arms” was a privilege of citizenship.

“The correct answer to this question should be important to all Americans, not just those focused on gun rights,” said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank. He and other scholars argue that reviving the privileges clause would strengthen other constitutional rights.

End quote, L.A. Times

 You can read in detail of the case itself, and Mr. McDonald’s plight, by reading this article in its entirety at the L.A. times.  You can do so by clicking here.

And while Mr. McDonald’s need and right to protect himself in his own home, against drug dealers, seems perfectly reasonable and perfectly legal to most Americans, this is not the case in Mr. McDonalds neck of the woods. Why?

Because this is not farmer McDonald of Old McDonald fame.  This is Otis McDonald of Chicago. And perhaps more than any other city which could be used as example, the plight of Otis McDonald and the Chicago gun bans which place his life in jeopardy, bring to the table perhaps the most telling aspect of why gun control is really nothing more than a blatant joke to criminals and a penalty to legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership. 

And it is a penalty enforced by leftist liberal gun control zealots that not only undermines our freedom, but places average American’s like Mr. McDonald in a hazardous and defenseless state even within the bounds of that most sacred of realms – the walls of their own home. 

Another interesting aspect of this case is the irony that it blatantly demonstrates the futility of trying to outlaw perfectly legitimate gun ownership as a means to stop illegal crime and murder in particular. 

This case began in Chicago. Crime infested with gangs, drugs, and frequent murder.  It is ironic that gun control advocates like to uphold gun bans in cities like Chicago, because the soaring crime and murder rates in such “controlled” enclaves clearly demonstrate that these laws hinder no one except lawful citizens who wish to exercise their right to own a firearm for protection – citizens like Mr. McDonald in cities like Chicago, where drive by shootings and murder are just an everyday part of the landscape in a city where guns are banned.

Yes, Chicago.  No longer merely the “Windy City”, but the city of rabid, racist preachers like the anti-American Jeremiah Wright, and the no less rabid but far more prominent, radical Muslim extremist Louis Farrakhan and the national headquarters for his Nation of Islam.  And let’s not forget: The windy city of Chicago also blows us away, with far left liberal Congressmen like House Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL).

Former Black Panther, Congressman Bobby Rush, whose own son was shot down in the street in Chicago some years back in a possible drug scandal, came charging forward as soon he was sworn in this past winter with the most sweeping gun control legislation to ever confront our 2nd Amendment.  Bobby’s latest legislation before the house is H.R. 45: Also known as “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”.

H.R. 45 is currently in committee pending before arriving at Congress to be put to a vote, and it is aimed not only at Chicago gun owners, but it is also aimed at legal gun owners nationwide.  If Bobby’s legislation succeeds in its intent, gun owners who have committed no crime will nevertheless be penalized as criminals who are in need of federal supervision for nothing more than exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

You can read all about Bobby Rush’s personal vendetta against the 2nd Amendment via his latest legislation, by reading our in depth article on both Bobby Rush, and H.R. 45, including its current status, and how to continuously track it, by clicking here .

But back to the Supreme Court and the ramifications of the current 2nd Amendment case scheduled for that court this session. 

The bottom line here in this latest case, National Rifle Association v. Chicago/McDonald v. Chicago, is that this is a really HUGE roll of the dice for the NRA, and supporters of the Second Amendment.  In spite of the risk, I believe it to be a wise choice – before further changes occur on the bench, and the window to cement our rights at our Supreme Court of the United States is forever closed.

In light of the current anti-second amendment philosophy in our current Senate, House of Representatives, and on Capital Hill, as well the potential for the current administration to seize the reigns of even our Judicial branch with further upcoming appointments to the bench in the up and coming near years ahead, this is the time to set down forever in stone from the highest court in our land that the fundamental right to bear arms is an individual liberty protected and secured by the Constitution. 

And it is not subject to the opinions of individuals, nor cities, nor even states. Nor is it subject to “change” at the whim of a socialist agenda movement.  It is a Constitutional right secured by our founding fathers for us, the inheritors of their causes. We are the people, and the 2nd Amendment is a right of the people, not subject to “change”.  It is now or never to insure it stays that way in the near and distant future.

If we are going to find any hope from our Supreme Court insofar as protecting our right to bear arms, we will likely find what is left of support for that fundamental liberty now, rather than later.

Advertisements