Supreme Court has shot at another gun rights’ case

Fort Worth Star Telegram ^ | Sep. 07, 2009 | JIM HRYEKEWICZ

[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"...

[neverdem]

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.

If you read Kennedy's questions and comments in the oral arguments of D.C. v. Heller, it was pretty obvious he was for an individual right. He has a history of usually voting for individual rights. Why would he let residents of D.C. have more rights than residents of Chicago?

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, but that which has been read, cannot be unread...

:^)

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

George Washington:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth and keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."
(Address to 1st session of Congress)

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
(1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Mao Tse Tung:
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
(Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
(1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

George Mason:
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
(3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

[stevie_d_64]

...with limited regulations???

rhet rohhhh...

[stevie_d_64]

No, but the image can scar you for life...

[stevie_d_64]

So will I regardless of what the Supreme Court says...

[epow]

I hope and pray that you're right about Justice Kennedy. As I'm sure you know, he's hard to categorize as either a moderate/liberal or a moderate/conservative based on his SCOTUS voting record, and that's what makes me nervous about his opinion on the issue. A SCOTUS decision confirming the validity of the 2nd A to not only the Federal government but also to the individual states would be the death knell for stringent gun control laws in the liberal anti-gun stronghold states such as NY, MA, CA, IL, etc, as well as those of most large US cities.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[JrsyJack]

If you read Kennedy's questions and comments in the oral arguments of D.C. v. Heller, it was pretty obvious he was for an individual right. He has a history of usually voting for individual rights. Why would he let residents of D.C. have more rights than residents of Chicago?

How is Kennedy on incorporation? The 2nd Amendment isn't necessarily at question here, it is the issue of incorporation and the applicability of Constitutional protection from State and Local governments.

[Still Thinking]

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Please tell me this guy is running for something! Oh, wait... :-(

[TheConservativeParty]

Armed women are citizens, unarmed women are subjects.

[fightinbluhen51]

The prediction is that it will bring open carry without a permit to ALL states! “To keep and BEAR, arms” means to own and to wear.

I forget where, but even Scalia eludes to that part of the 2A in his majority opinion in Heller, but they do not issue a direct action on the “BEAR” part, since that was not the question before the court, only the individual vs. state’s militia aspect, and the whole seeking to register for a permit (which you can’t permit / register / license a right).

It is almost a shame that this case is going to make the court before the one that Sotamayor sat on the bench for in NY, as then she’d have to recuse herself from the arguments.

[Clinging Bitterly]

What has been seen cannot be unseen. Sometimes you don't even have to see it.

YOU ought to be ashamed of yourself.