Mr. McDonald's Handgun

American Thinker ^ | March 20, 2010 | Ben T. Briscoe

[neverdem]

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in what will be a landmark case for the Second Amendment: McDonald v. Chicago. A ruling is expected this June.

A bit of history is in order. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun rights in Heller v. The District of Columbia. The basis for Heller was that Washington, D.C. prohibited ownership of a handgun. The Court ruled that a federal enclave (D.C.) could not, through legislation, deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. The ruling was a major victory for gun owners, the Constitution, and personal liberty.  

Since the 2008 case prohibited restrictive gun ownership only in Washington, D.C., Americans living under state and local rule prohibiting the right to bear arms were motivated to present a sister case contesting the constitutionality of legislating away a right. So McDonald v. Chicago was filed, the basis being that McDonald wanted to legally own a handgun for protection in the city of Chicago, where handgun ownership is illegal.

I don't have a single issue political litmus test, but if I did, it would be how a candidate or elected official stands on gun control. And I'm passionate about this political issue for the following reasons: The right to bear arms is paramount to our liberty, and nothing solidifies that more for me than its location at the beginning of our bill of rights. 

The Second Amendment was penned not for the benefit of hunters and recreation (although that is a great by-product), but to ensure personal protection and the last line of defense against a rogue government. The framers of our Constitution had recently experienced the oppression of a tyrannical government, and they wanted to ensure that future citizens would have the freedom to bear arms and that future governing bodies would well understand that those they rule have leverage at the ballot box first -- and if that process is ignored, then with a firearm second. 

In truth, the former reason is the real reason liberal politicians push for gun control. I am not an advocate of revolution when we have a voice, but our founding fathers repeatedly sought representation, only be to consistently ignored and abused by a government that was not of the people, for the people and by the people.  

But what does a government have to fear from a law-abiding citizen who owns guns? The answer is nothing...ever. A law-abiding man is going to be...law-abiding. The ownership of a gun does not transform him into something evil. Certainly, evil men have guns regardless of the law, which is all the more reason for law-abiding citizens to have guns for self-defense. Firearms are not going to go away. The only thing that will change with more stringent gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will become unarmed and move into the unrestricted, year-round open season category for criminals. Outlawing the ownership of firearms also moves the government one step closer to tyranny. 

Those on the pro side of gun control need to study history. Start with the impact of gun control on Germany in 1930s. Taking away German citizens' private ownership of arms was not the catalyst for WWII, but it was a vital act that propelled Adolf Hitler into unchecked power. Study the increase in the crime rate in post-gun control England and Australia.

If those who push so hard for gun control were really concerned about the safety of our citizens, you'd think that they would attack the core problem. In a New York Times study of the 1600+ murders between 2003 and 2005, over 90 percent of the killers had a criminal record, and it's appalling how many of those were convicted felons. This is the rule, not the exception; people commit crimes, not guns. We need criminal control, but the same people who scream for more gun control are often the very ones who demand criminal rights and rehab in lieu of just punishment and keeping the scum off the streets. A criminal who proves that he has no respect for the law is not going to lay down his gun because ownership is no longer legal. If a person doesn't care to own a firearm, that is fine. But the fact is that we are safer and enjoy more freedom today because our citizens enjoy the freedom of gun ownership.

Some people argue that guns should be outlawed because they present such a safety risk. But three times more people die in car accidents each year than are killed with guns. Over half of the deaths in auto accidents are alcohol-related, and there are more firearms in America then there are private vehicles, which statistically makes the ratio worse for autos. Rules and safety precautions are in place for alcohol, autos, and weapons, and there are negative consequences for non-compliance. So the debate is really not about safety or we'd be outlawing cars and booze. 

The gun license and registration requirements don't work because gun-licensing is another form of taxation and government bureaucracy. "Registration" is a precursor for confiscation. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a right. There are already rules and protocol in place for proper gun ownership. If we follow those, we'll all be fine...we don't need more laws, more fees, and more taxes on guns.

The talking heads believe that the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment, but it is scary that something this fundamental and vital could be so close. For our future freedom, let's hope that the Second Amendment, the American people, and Mr. McDonald are the victors.

[neverdem]

IIRC, it was The District of Columbia v. Heller.

[neverdem]

Coffee Party 'founder' in Astroturf hole, keeps digging

Global Warming on Trial

US states sue EPA to stop greenhouse gas rules [FL, IN, SC, VA, TX, AL...]

Chill Out - Climate scientists are getting a little too angry for their own good.

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Condor51]

*** IIRC, it was The District of Columbia v. Heller. ***

You're correct. When it hit SCOTUS it was DC v Heller.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Good memory ;-)

[Condor51]

oops forgot to add

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

There, that's better.

[Joe Brower]

Mr. Otis McDonald. A living example of how you can't judge a book by its cover.

[2harddrive]

I would say the Heller case decision prohibited guns bans EVERYWHERE in the USA. It is just that Chicageo is ignoring the now-settled law.

[Cboldt]

-- I would say the Heller case decision prohibited guns bans EVERYWHERE in the USA. --

The Circuit Courts have been lying their asses off for decades, using the Presser case in a rankly dishonest and corrupt fashion.

Mr. Presser conducted a parade in Chicago. His parade was with armed people. The law said he needed a parade permit, and he said, "no, the 2nd amendment give me the right to parade, as long as my parade is armed."

Faced with that argument, here is what SCOTUS said, in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). You'll be able to figure out which clause the Circuit Court cherry picked out of the opinion, to support the outcome they wanted (to disarm the public).

The below is presented as a continuous excerpt, not a single word, character or paragraph lies between the two reproduced below.

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

The Circuit Courts cite the Presser case for the proposition that states are perfectly free to infringe the RKBA.

[stevie_d_64]

The “reality” at the end of the day, will still be that we still have our guns...

Regardless of what they do...

[spodefly]

BTTT

[wolfcreek]

From now on known as, Ol’ McDonald. (excluding the farm, animals, etc)

With a bang bang here and a pow pow there, here a gun, there a gun, everywhere a gun gun. EIEIO.

[VOA]

“
Mr. Otis McDonald. A living example of how you can’t judge a book by its cover.
“

I heard him in a short interview with National Public Radio (I listen
to NPR for “oppossition research”).
He sounded like he probably leans a bit left of center...but he’s
clear on the right to own a weapon. He said he must have one because
his neighborhood is in long, steady decline.
All in all, he sounded like a good guy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[MHGinTN]

I have been devoting a lot of time of late on thoughts for home defense, and settled upon two excellent options: an inexpensive single-shot .410 shotgun and/or a 9mm carbine, like the Hi-Point or the KelTecSub2000. The idea is to have ammo and weapon stored separately if there are still children in the home, but retain the ability to quickly bring the weapon to loaded and ready to fire.

I've attached a foregrip and laser and devised a way to keep the .410 ammo (which comes in a variety of shells, even slugs) at the ready to be stapped onto the side of the stock of the gun where it is easily used for reloading. The 9MM carbine is easier because it can be brought to ready with a detachable magazine of high capacity such as twenty or thrity rounds for rapid shooting, of course using a laser to assist in target acquisition.

Both methods for defense can be fired effectively 'from the hip' since the laser dot is the aim point. Shooting 'from the hip' also allows the inexperience shooter to see the entire field in front, to take into account little ones in a panic.

If the federal oligarchy removes the Constitutional right to bear arms in defense, they should be swiftly 'attacked'. Our society grows more lawless each deacde, as liberals coddle criminals and sweep aside victims of criminals while stretching 'rights' ever higher for the criminal element ... in order to make the populace more dependent upon the federal oligarchs of course. We the people need to stop this trend and reverse it NOW.