Two years ago, attorney Alan Gura stood before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue a landmark firearm civil rights case – District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller – that would ultimately lead to the high court’s definition of the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right.
Tomorrow morning – call it “Black Tuesday” for gun prohibitionists, if one is to believe the court prognosticators – Gura will once again be standing before the court, arguing that the City of Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and should be struck down, and that the Second Amendment should be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment. If the court majority once again agrees with his arguments, it will be the next major step in reversing more than 100 years of gun rights erosion that some say began with the “Black Codes” in the Reconstruction South and the notorious “Deadline” laws in Old West cattle towns, to say nothing of the abysmal Sullivan Law in New York.
For us the choice is clear: The Bill of Rights should apply to the whole country.—Los Angeles Times
The case now before the court is McDonald v. City of Chicago, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents. But this case could have ramifications that stretch from Miami to Kotzebue and Bangor to Honolulu. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has weighed in against the lawsuit, and eight cities – including Seattle (and we’ll get to this in a moment) – have asked the court to uphold the Chicago gun ban.
Oral arguments will span one hour, half to the defendants and the other half to the plaintiffs. The court has allowed ten minutes of plaintiffs’ time to an attorney for the National Rifle Association, which filed a similar lawsuit against Chicago and neighboring Oak Park. Bluntly speaking, it should be a lively 60 minutes.
Various news agencies have offered opinions on this case, not the least of which is a shocker from the traditionally anti-gun Los Angeles Times that argues for Court affirmation that the Second Amendment be incorporated. My colleague, John Longenecker, discusses that editorial here. The Fort Wayne, IN Journal Gazette predicted that the Court will strike down the ban and incorporate the Second Amendment, an irony considering that Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is a former mayor of that city.
Two years ago, the justices ruled that the Washington handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. So it seems inevitable that the court will extend that ruling past the federally controlled District of Columbia to the 50 states.—Fort Wayne, IN Journal Gazette
Generations of Americans have taken for granted that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that applies to the states. It would take a history lesson in constitutional law to explain why that is not currently so, and if anything, the Chicago case will allow the Supreme Court to take care of what might be considered a “housekeeping” chore. That the Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled the Amendment does apply to the states probably has no bearing on how the nation’s high court will rule, but it does suggest that even state court justices share the opinion of a majority of American citizens. I wrote about that here.
The minority view is represented by Seattle, where new Mayor Mike McGinn and his parks and recreation department are licking their wounds from a court loss last month, striking down a gun ban in city parks. I wrote about that here. Perhaps by no surprise, that ban had also been challenged by SAF and the NRA, along with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individuals.
Most lawyers and scholars who follow the court think the cities have a losing hand; they say it is unlikely the five justices who made up the majority in Heller will decide that the right to own a firearm for self-protection exists only in a federal enclave.—Washington Post
Political leaders in Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere who want to maintain their authority to regulate a civil right as though it were a privilege need a serious dose of reality. A loss in Chicago will serve as a slap-upside-the-head wake-up call for Richard Daley as did Seattle’s recent loss jar ultra-liberal freshman McGinn and his equally-detached predecessor Greg Nickels.
To argue – as Chicago and supporting cities seem to be doing – that a basic civil right should differ from one place to another is so fundamentally flawed that only a complete bonehead would suggest such a thing. Is freedom of speech or the press different in Chicago than Austin? Does a criminal suspect have a right to legal representation in Richmond but not in Pasadena? If a citizen in Phoenix has a right to have a handgun, then the same right must be recognized in Chicago.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the Chicago gun ban, the Seattle case, the gun ban in San Francisco that was struck down by the California Supreme Court, and other such egregious violations of a cornerstone civil right is that all of these affronts existed in the first place. An affirmative ruling in the Chicago case could open the legal floodgates, as well it should.
Experts, meanwhile, say the only guarantee is that the latest Supreme Court case will keep judges across the country busy on gun rights issues for years to come.—San Jose Mercury News
For years, leaders at SAF, the NRA and other gun rights organizations that the press and gun prohibitionists have tried to marginalize have been telling the country that these laws are wrong.
One can only hope that maybe, after the high court strikes down Chicago’s gun ban as is now predicted, that people will finally listen.
Visit with the Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone
Austin: Howard Nemerov
Boston: Ron Bokleman
Charlotte: Paul Valone
Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard
Chicago: Don Gwinn
Cleveland: Daniel White
DC: Mike Stollenwerk
Denver: Dan Bidstrup
Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones
Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel
Knoxville: Liston Matthews
Los Angeles: John Longenecker
Minneapolis: John Pierce
National: David Codrea
Phoenix: Douglas Little
Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell
Seattle: Dave Workman
St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann
Tucson: Chris Woodard
Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
For more info: Chicago gun case. Second Amendment Foundation. National Rifle Association. Illinois State Rifle Association.
Comments
Dave, I apologize for posting this here instead of emailing it to you, but I can't find an email addy for you! The gun-grabbers at the Brady Campaign are holding a protest to express their disdain for our Second Amendment Rights and toward Starbucks for allowing Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry licensed firearms inside their stores. I'll be there at around 10:00 on Wednesday morning to show my support for our Second Amendment Rights. Won't you join me? This is in downtown Seattle at Victor Steinbrueck Park (Next to Pike Place Market)2000 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Afterward, we can walk a block to the very first starbucks in Pike Place Market and show our support by purchasing a coffee!
I hope the predictions are correct. I know they should be. But I am not enamored or trusting of a court that tries to temper principle with pragmatism. Not a prediction, just a well-earned wariness. I still remember Kelo.
"Licensed firearms"? There's no such thing. However, one can have a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) in Washington State, although it isn't needed in order to carry a firearm as long as it isn't concealed.
Starbucks simply recognizes state law and allows one to carry in their stores however they want as long as it's in accordance with state law.
If NRA has been saying that these gun laws are wrong, then why have they only now, and only since Heller decided to go to court against their advice have they been actively in pursuit? Why did they continue, during the period prior, not press the case against the bans, and for the 2A? Why did they consistently work for Permits (unconstitutional under Staub v. Baxley), saying they were a safety against the crimnal getting guns, while, all the while, criminals were getting guns? Only the law abiding needed permits? That's reasonable? There's sense in that? Why didn't they just get the right restored through state courts that were amenable, and then go for this restoration? And, why didn't they heed my advice, but instead excoriated me, for bringing these judicial rulings to their (Wayne LaPierre, Alan Gottlieb) personal attention at SCOPE banquets? Instead I got the we can't do that, it won't fly, courts not on our side, want to make sure they are before proceeding, etc., excuses.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!