The long-awaited challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010 and already it is looking like everyone, on both sides of the issue, anticipates that the justices will rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the 14th Amendment as a barrier to local gun bans,
Even anti-gunners appear to be pressing the notion that if the Amendment is incorporated, the justices should leave enough wiggle room in their ruling to allow most, if not all, existing gun control laws to stand.
This leaves many hard-core gun rights advocates once again demanding, “What part of shall-not-be-infringed don’t you understand?”
If the Second Amendment truly protects a fundamental individual civil right to keep and bear arms that has nothing to do with service in a militia, then gun advocates appear to have a serious point, one that gun prohibitionists seem averse to recognize. Gun control laws have never merely tried to prevent crime. Indeed, crime control appears to have always been used as a Trojan horse justification for a far more insidious motive. Gun control laws have always endeavored to disarm the public, or some segment of the pubic, be they freed Southern blacks, Italian and other Southern European immigrants, poor whites, or just average citizens. The racist history of gun control is pretty well documented historically.
What part of 'shall-not-be-infringed' don’t you understand?”
What gun prohibitionists have never understood is that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not simply meant for the elitist, privileged gentry.
For more than a generation, the anti-gun political machine in Chicago has denied a basic civil right to its citizens. That must end. That is why the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association, in cooperation with four Chicago residents, took the city to court last year.
As reported here and here earlier, the press seems to have deliberately or simply out of ignorance, gotten this case confused with a lawsuit filed against Chicago by the National Rifle Association. Hardly should anyone ever try to explain press carelessness, but it would seem that reporters should be able to tell the NRA apart from SAF and ISRA, and that McDonald v. City of Chicago is not the same case as NRA v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park. It is not that the NRA’s case is any less worthy – both are solid challenges to an egregious city gun ban that has not prevented a single crime in more than 20 years – but it has to do with accuracy.
Why the high court accepted only the SAF/ISRA case and not both cases is a question better answered by Chief Justice John Roberts in his memoir, presuming he writes one.
My colleague Howard Nemerov writes about the case here. It has also been discussed in a recent Reason magazine article.
Readers can keep up to date by visiting the SAF/ISRA Chicago Gun Case website here.
Parkland case continues to worsen
The case of cop-killer Maurice Clemmons and the people he left to face the music continues to worsen. The image of Clemmons that is emerging from the investigation is that of a remorseless thug. I am writing a lengthy piece about this case for an upcoming issue of Gun Week.
Court documents have revealed that his associates and family members helped him elude police in the hours after the killing of four Lakewood police officers in cold blood.
Questions linger that suggest some planning went into this crime.
How did Clemmons know he would find police officers at that hour of the morning, at that particular coffee shop, which is about two blocks off of a main arterial, S. 112th Street?
Had he studied their routines?
Court papers say he had talked about killing police, killing children and killing people “at an intersection.” This guy had a lot of killing on his mind and he didn’t seem to care about who knew it inside his circle, including his aunt, Letrecia Nelson.
Those who heard him talk about it did not seem too interested in notifying authorities, either.
In one of the court documents is an interesting insight into why that might be so. It quotes Nelson speaking to her daughter, Cicely Clemmons, the gunman's cousin, about having treated the gunman’s bullet wound and not telling police.
Cicely told Letrecia, “It ain’t right.”
Letrecia’s response: “It ain’t right, but family’s more important.”
More from 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 | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
For more info: Chicago Gun Case. Second Amendment Foundation.
Comments
Dave I have been angry at the pro-gun movement for years for them not realizing and/or being afraid to tell the truth about the racist roots of gun control.
This whole re-interpretation that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the States came after the 1831 Turner Rebellion.
The Slaughter House case came after the passage of the 14th amendment as a way to weaken the immunities and privileges clause of the 14th amendment.
Even Dred Scott is all about disarming Blacks and preserving the Black codes.
Dave gun groups have been playing the game of compromise and concession far too long there is nothing reasonable about gun control.
Today the anti’s are using the excuse of mental illness to promote gun control while denying the effects of psychotropic drugs and their connection to violence.
Dave we need the pro-gun groups to stand up straight, stop compromising and get in their head that we are going to repeal gun control
Dave,ditto madashell.This is a war.In this war there will be no truce.The gun ban Nazis are relentless.They claim that they are "reasonable",that they only want to "keep guns away from criminals" and stop "gun violence".But every knowledgeable NRA member knows better. The gun banners,hiding behind their totally debunked lies, never quit, never stop assaulting Second Amendment rights,even when they admit they know their legislation is unconstitutional, reference our own Mayor Nickels.So the war will either be won,or it will be lost.There is no compromise, no middle ground. The Second Amendment will stand without infringements one day, or one day it will continue to be "infringed" into oblivion.With 22,000 unlawful,unconstitutional gun control laws on the books now, that have done NOTHING to stop crime or "gun violence"and Obama's gun ban Nazis calling for more,I'm not very optimistic.It will be lost unless somehow ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN LAWS are rescinded and OUTLAWED forever.
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!