Monday, March 1, 2010

Supreme Court to Decide

What will it be? Capital Hill Blue has a wonderful summary of what's at stake.

Lock and load…the Supreme Court will weigh in soon with a gun ruling that could open he door for more gun control by states and localities or it could slam it shut in the faces of advocates for stricter legislation.

The court will soon decide whether or not the Second Amendment — used by gun fanciers as the quid pro quo for packing heat — applies to states as well as the federal government.

Some Constitutional scholars believe it does.

The court is considering a case that could strike down handgun bans in Chicago and suburban Oak Park as part of a decision on whether or not the full Bill of Rights applies as much to state and local law as it does in federal cases.

On the surface, applying the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights to state and local government would appear to be a clear victory for gun advocates but the gun-control crowd thinks a ruling could also allow state and local government to enact tougher laws.

Gun control opponents, of course, argue just the opposite.

At issue is the due process clause of the 14th amendment which says, in part, that no state shall create or enforce any law that curtails “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The amendment also states that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

The National Rife Association says the 14th Amendment reaffirms the rights of the Second Amendment. Those who disagree says the 14th Amendment also prohibits the states from doing things like legalizing guns that others can use to deprive a person of life or liberty.

Both sides are keeping their powder dry and waiting for the court’s decision.

One thing for sure, it's gonna be an interesting year for the gun debate.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.


  1. 1) Gun rights come from State Constitutions, not the Second Amendment. Meaning that State Constitutions not only grant "gun rights", but also give a larger grant of gun rights, Which makes the concept of "incorporating" the Second Amendment seems a bit weird

    2) The Second Amendment was to apply to the Federal Government, not the State government.

    In light of (1) and the fact that gun rights are creatures of the state. This is downright bizarre.

    In fact, if anything this is an example of the tyranny which the founders rebelled against. That is interference in local affairs by non-citizens.

  2. "2) The Second Amendment was to apply to the Federal Government, not the State government."

    That is what the court is going to decide.

    "That is interference in local affairs by non-citizens."

    So Laci believes that the Southern States should have been allowed to keep their slaves.


  3. Capital Hill Blue says:

    The court will soon decide whether or not the Second Amendment — used by gun fanciers as the quid pro quo for packing heat . . .

    That's a . . . novel use of the term "quid pro quo."

  4. Pretty sad actually that a so-called "lawyer" lacks even the most basic understanding of Con Law.

    My 2nd Amendment rights are not "granted" by a document, be it State or Federal Constitutions.

    That is interference in local affairs by non-citizens.

    So I take it you were also against the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Should have just let states/localities infringe upon the rights of blacks, rather than step in and "interfere" with their actions.

  5. Zorro, I noticed that too. I guess the author thought quid quo pro means excuse or justification. Pretty funny.

  6. "One thing for sure, it's gonna be an interesting year for the gun debate."

    Shocked as I am, we actually agree 100%, MikeB!

    Here's the future as I see it.

    We win in McDonald. Brady Bunch sees the writing on the wall. After Heller the Brady's knew that passing any FEDERAL laws would be problematic, so they shifted focus to individual states.

    This hits them in the pocketbook big time. Rather than a sweeping federal law, they now must attack each of the 50 states seperately. This is gonna cost, uh...roughly 50 times as much in time and resources.

    After we win McDonald, the Brady Bunch will be reduced down to attacking us in individual restaurants and coffee shops, which is what they practicing now.

    The Brady's will go broke long before they see any major accomplishments.

    You should look up the BC's "expanding ring" strategy.

    Short version is:
    1. Have Chicago at the center with it's "tough gun laws" ie ban.
    2. Expand those laws into Chicago's suburbs(Oak Park, Morton Grove)
    3. Expand the ring to the entire state of Illinois.
    4. Expand again to neighboring states.
    5. Keep expanding until nation wide.

    This is their stated strategy, I'm paraphrasing but this is their publically stated plan.

    McDonald strikes at the very heart of their strategy...Chicago.

    That's why they're a bunch of sad pandas.

    A loss at SCOTUS will send them back to the drawing board with very few viable options for advancing any meaningful gun control.

    A prediction?... yes.

    A darn good prediction?...again, yes.

  7. If McDonald loses should I have to pay federal income tax? I do live in a State after all.


  8. Well, incorporation is likely, but--not too surprisingly--SCOTUS still seems not to have figured out what shall not be infringed means.

    There's still a lot of work to be done, before the Second Amendment is restored to its rightful glory as the bulwark against efforts to limit the martial power of the citizenry.

    The surprising part for me was the vehemence of their rejection of the privileges or immunities clause argument.

  9. If McDonald loses does that mean it's legal for the individual states (or a city) to re-institute slavery or deny women the right to vote?