Posted on 09/08/2009 1:43:06 PM PDT by neverdem
Otis McDonald is a great American.
In the 1960s, he wore an Army uniform and served with distinction. He then moved home to Chicago were he began a family. Meanwhile, he busied himself during the days with work at his local union. Eventually, he led the effort to integrate his union and ended up as president of the union.
In recent years, McDonald looked around Chicago and decided that he could do something about the shadowy areas of the city outside the bright lights. He went into impoverished, crime-riddled neighborhoods as a community activist. Yet his work inevitably meant he crossed paths with shady characters — drug dealers and gang leaders. Justifiably, he feared for his safety. And he wanted a gun.
"I only want a handgun," he explains, "for my protection."
Yet the city of Chicago disagreed. A city ordinance there essentially prohibits McDonald — or any resident — from owning a handgun. Not that the ordinance has stopped the criminals. They seem to own lots of guns.
McDonald was encouraged last year when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In that ruling, the court essentially struck down the famous gun ban in the nation’s capital. For years, legal scholars had debated whether the Second Amendment applied to individuals or the government.
Scholars on the left believed it merely gave the government the power to create a formal militia.
But other scholars pointed out that the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee rights to individuals — like free speech, free expression of religion and free association. Why was the Second Amendment different?
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s not. In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said a review of "founding-era sources"...
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
How’s their aim?
“Yet the city of Chicago disagreed. A city ordinance there essentially prohibits McDonald — or any resident — from owning a handgun. Not that the ordinance has stopped the criminals. They seem to own lots of guns.”
Gosh, who could have seen THAT coming?
Doesn't go far enough. The man wants to carry a firearm for defensive purposes, not keep one in his home.
When the Left bans guns, only the left will have guns...............
I hope to God [pray too ;-)], that this does get the same application that Heller got! And I don’t see how it couldn’t.
Exactly, “in the home” was okayed by Heller.
This case needs to okay “right to carry”, or at least okay it with limited regs.
Damn that boating accident! ;-)
That case is already in the works in DC. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/09/gun_owners_next_victory_in_dc.html
This case is to “incorporate” the amendment to the states (thus binding them to the same obligations as the Fed Gov), through the 14th Amendment.
Also, just remembered, that once incorporated, there are several “by dicta” rulings that the governments cannot restrict open carry without a permit, so he’ll be allowed to carry, just not concealed.
Any guesses on Sotomayor’s opinion?
Does facing away from the audience, bending over and lifting one’s robes constitute an “opinion”?
And we have no doubt that the Supreme Court will agree with us and grant Otis McDonald and other law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection.
That will depend on unpredictable Justice Kennedy. His was the deciding vote on the Heller case, and in the meantime one liberal "living document" Justice has replaced another liberal (Sotomyeer replaced Souter) on the court. The four originalist Justices will no doubt vote favorable to the original intent of the authors on this issue as they did on Heller, once again making Kennedy the swing vote. And that situation worries me, because I don't trust him as the sole arbiter of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.
For the 2nd Amendment, Sotomayer won’t be much worse than Souter who she replaced.
We better hope that Scalia and Kennedy do not resign or die before we can replace 0bama and his socialist Senate. (they are both 73 years old).
Armed men are citizens. Unarmed men are subjects.
The “opinion” will be what’s on the floor, stinking up the room, after she’s done lifting her robes and bending over.
Well, she replaced Souter who would have voted against anything good anyway, and she’ll probably be less influential than he, so as long as Kennedy can find his testicles, she shouldn’t have any immediate impact. Souter voted wrong on Heller, for example.
Ick.
There’s a bottle of Brain Bleach on a shelf next to the Emergency Eyewash Station.
So this case, if it goes our way, could bring open carry to Texas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.