McDonald vs Chicago

[ssc]

The Supreme Court has taken up another second amendment case and heard argument. I have been watching this since late last year. With the conservative majority and the recent ruling in Heller, I think the anti gun crowd is in for a major defeat. If the city of Chicago had half a brain they would have settled this matter long ago. Instead, they have done the pro gun movement a great service due to their arrogance and ignorance--and I would like to thank them. It would appear that the ludicrous anti gun argument that the second amendment was not an individual right will be put to rest once and for all!!! Having studied con law a bit and in discussions with many constitutional scholars--many who were anti gun--there was only one conclusion after a reasonable study and research--The second amendment is an individual right.

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=na ... CB0QsQQwBA

Regards, Steve

[salad_man]

Its about time

[ssc]

We may see some more last ditch efforts from the anti gun crowd with this decision on the horizon. I hope the decision is not narrow but far reaching. I think it will be, due to the make up of the court.

Regards, Steve

[DaveK]

(Sound of hands rubbing together in a gesture of fiendish delight)

Sounds like I may have all the ingredients for another Net topic!!!!!

[ssc]

Dave,
Do you think I am seeing it correctly? Or do you think it will be a narrowly construed decision? I had a conversation with my Uncle this last weekend and he has always argued with me about the second amendment. He is anti gun and claims it is a collective right. Being that he is a Federal Judge (retired), he and I debated this many times. Of course after Heller, I called him and gave him some grief.

He even feels that McDonald is going to be a case that will define the second amendment as an individual right with limitations. He does have to get the last word, as he looked at me and said, with a smile, "Steve, my boy, even the Supreme Court makes mistakes." I think he has always felt it was an individual right, but what the heck.

Regards, Steve

[DaveK]

Steve:

I think you are correct.

Trying to figure out what the Supreme Court will do is a lot like predicting earthquakes, but not nearly as accurate. While Heller did not deal directly with the issue of the 14th amendment, there are at least a dozen references to it in the decision. If you look at the context in which the amendment was raised, arguably you can get some insight into the thinking of the majority on the question of incorporation. It is interesting to note that the majority opinion cited Blackstone, with apparent approval, for the notion that the right to self defense, with guns, was fundamental. If one extends this thinking to its logical conclusion, I am persuaded that there is no way that this fundamental right will not be treated as so many others have - incorporated by the 14th to apply to the States.

There is one other odd twist to this bizarre legal journey. There is a certain Federal Circuit Court that has held the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, via the 14th. It is the Court that many would never have guessed would do it - the 9th. The case was Nordyke v King, decided last year. While their reasoning was unconventional, their conclusion was correct.

This is what the 9th Circuit said:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred
years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature
of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium
of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental,
that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments

The make up of the USSC is essentially as it was when Heller came down. Can we expect them to remain true to the constitution?? Bets anyone???

[Dennis David]

The problem with a wider ruling is that it opens a new can of worms around the eroding of states rights. I wish we could compromise and have some common sense national rules.

My own wish would be for national gun control but once those controls are met (license, training, etc) let us have and carry our damn guns (preferably concealed). Instead there is all this back and forth fighting.

[DaveK]

The problem with a wider ruling is that it opens a new can of worms around the eroding of states rights. I wish we could compromise and have some common sense national rules.

My own wish would be for national gun control but once those controls are met (license, training, etc) let us have and carry our damn guns (preferably concealed). Instead there is all this back and forth fighting.

Dennis:

Seeing how the Federal Government has mismanaged nearly everything that they touch, I am more than a little reluctant to rely on them for a system of "national gun control".

On the States rights question and what a wider decision would do, the decision by the USSC, (if they do it) to apply the 2nd amendment to the States is not so much an erosion of States rights as it is a confirmation of a fundamental "individual right". To the extent that some states have infringed on this fundamental right, they need to be constrained.

[Dennis David]

I understand your reluctance for anything national. The issue is if you travel every state has different rules and in California it's just ridiculous. As a person who travels and would prefer to be armed it's next to impossible. Plus not everything that's national is hopeless.

I was referring to the idea of applying the 14th amendment to this case.

[ssc]

Dennis,
I will respectfully disagree. My thinking on the subject mirrors Daves post.

Regards, Steve