Violence Policy Center worries that Supreme Court will heed the Constitution

St Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 11 November, 2009 | Kurt Hoffman

[marktwain]

Much has been written (including some by myself and other Gun Rights Examiners--see links beneath the photo) about the impending McDonald v. City of Chicago case to be heard by the Supreme Court early next year. In this case, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association are challenging Chicago's handgun ban (the NRA also eventually became involved).

Probably the biggest issue that will be decided here is whether or not the Second Amendment is to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus apply to state and local governments, as well as to the feds. If SCOTUS does decide in favor of incorporation (which seems to be the expected outcome), then Chicago's outright ban of handguns will be history--although Heller illustrates to us that just about every conceivable lesser restriction will still be on the table.

America Magazine recently (so recently, in fact, that the article is dated for next week) featured an editorial about the case, and the editors leave little room for doubt about where they stand.

To widen the impact of the [Heller] ruling to local and state regions, gun rights proponents want to obtain a similar ruling in the Chicago case and thus eviscerate the stricter gun laws there and elsewhere in the country. Such a ruling would be a troubling development indeed, particularly for Chicago, a city that has an especially high rate of gun violence.

[marktwain]

There is a means of changing the Constitution, but the elitists that want to disarm us know that they cannot pass a Constitutional amendment.

[marktwain]

Italics did not come through in the excerpt. Go to the link to see who is saying what. It is a very good article.

[arthurus]

There is no need or ability to "incorporate" the 2nd Amendment.
It is antecedent to the 14th Amendment.
Its wording is absolute.
It does not say that Congress shall make no law.
It does not distinguish between military and sporting arms.
It says the RKBA shall not be infringed. That allows for no infringement. It does not specify who shall not infringe.There is no modifying context.
If a state infringes, that is contrary to "shall not be infringed."
If Chicago infringes, that is contrary to "shall not be infringed."
If the manager of K-Mart infringes, that is contrary to "shall not be infringed."

[eyeamok]

where in the hell did you get this pie in the sky attitude that the Constitution is supreme over federal and state laws?? you know damn well that our founding fathers fought a revolution against king george, so that only Government Had rights, and the Constitution was only to protect residents of Washington DC.