Those who would deprive American citizens of the right to protect themselves and their loved ones against criminals who are capable of killing them, are not handling their portending defeat well. According to “the usual pundits,” the indications from the recent US Supreme Court arguments in McDonald v. Chicago are that SCOTUS is likely to soon confirm that, for all the states in the union and not just the District of Columbia, the right to keep and bear arms extends to all Americans.
In Chicago, where the mayoralty seems to have become a royal dynasty, the ferociously anti-gun mayor seems to be virtually foaming at the mouth. Mayor Daley says that “we” – him as well as the rest of us, apparently – killed John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. Think I’m kidding? Catch the confirmation HERE.
Jeez, King Richard…if you’re copping to all of those with the inclusive “we,” you’re going to completely rewrite the whole crackpot conspiracy book. By the way, Mayor Daley, how come you didn’t mention that after you banned handgun ownership to honest, decent people in the city of Chicago, your city experienced a 41% rise in murders while the rest of the nation was less than half that, at an 18% increase?
The Second Amendment Foundation funded and “backboned” the McDonald case, but it is significant to look beyond the lobbyists and into the faces of the plaintiffs in the case themselves. Chicago magazine did so, HERE.
When you go to the latter link, notice that these are the faces of ordinary, hard-working American citizens. This isn’t about lobbyists in thousand dollar suits. Look at the face of the plaintiff after whom the case is named: Otis McDonald, a septuagenarian black man who lives in a tough part of a tough city, and wants to be able to keep his family safe, as well as himself. The hypocritical mayor is surrounded by a bodyguard contingent of well-armed Chicago police officers. In the best tradition of self-reliant Americans, Otis McDonald isn’t asking for elite warriors from a 13,000 person police force in a city of millions to be assigned exclusively to protect him and his, as Daley has…he is only asking for the basic human right, the basic American right, to protect himself and his loved ones.
I’ve had the privilege of speaking with Otis McDonald. Before too long, I will interview him on this matter. You will read what he has to say, here.
Look upon the face of the lead plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago.
Look upon the face of freedom…the face of core human rights in our nation.
Adam Orlov, David and Colleen Lawson, and Otis McDonald, the lead named plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, now being deliberated by the Supreme Court Of The United States.
Photo Credit: CHICAGO Magazine
You’re not wrong, but I do feel it’s worth noting that the reason the plaintiffs look like such a wholesome cross section of Americana is because this was the intent from the very beginning. When the SAF started looking for people, they wanted as strong a case as possible and that includes a very sympathetic, media friendly group of plaintiffs.
It’s covered a bit in this article from a few weeks ago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-news-chicago-gun-ban-20100129,0,6580167,full.story
“The Second Amendment Foundation funded and “backboned” the McDonald case, […]”
Would it be excessively cynical of me to suspect that if SCOTUS finds for McDonald and rules that the Second is incorporated to all of the States, the NRA will step in front and try to claim credit the way they did with the Katrina lawsuit?
I’m SICK and TIRED of people thinking they are smarter than the founding fathers of this country. Who the hell gave the activist judges, bleeding heart attorneys, or anybody else the right to take away my God-given right to protect myself, my family and loved ones??
A dollar spent on the SAF is money that goes to ensure that Americans have the rights given to them by the second amendment. As far as I’m aware, that money is voluntarily given to them. The money that the government takes involuntarily, is being used against the people it is supposed to serve. How is that justice?? Talk about twisted!! How long are we going to keep thinking so illogically??? Lets keep our heads and vote the fools out of office be they Rhinos or Dems.
Education is a major component of this fight. To those anti-choice people that consider themselves “enlightened” I have a thought. Perhaps you’ve never been around a gun in your life, or involved in a violent crime. If that’s the case, get to know real people that have. If you’re not willing to do that, you are the one hurting people!
To Phil from NH,
This is nothing new to the NRA; they essentially did the same thing in regard to DC vs Heller…where they initially tried to DERAIL the case from going anywhere in the first place.
Read about it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Law.com coverage: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1185527215310
More recent discussion here: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=441976
I am not now nor ever have been happy with the NRA. They’ve been negotiating away our rights since 1934.
Once more people see them for what they truly are I hope they will turn to real no-compromise gun rights organizations like the GOA and JPFO. The NRA will never try as hard (by percent of influence) as those two groups to restore our rights.
The NRA demanded, and got, time in the oral presentations for their representative to give their position on the case. This in effect stole one third of the time Alan Gura had available to present his arguments.
I am a long time member of the organization and feel that their efforts on training and safety are commendable, but if this bit of grandstanding causes us to lose this case they will never see another penny from me.
As a person who grew up in the Chicago area and maintained a family business there for two generations, you may need a little background on Ritchie Daley. First, he is a jumbled speaker who makes George W. Bush seem like Aristotle. Secondly, there was overwhelming proof at the time that he cheated on his Bar exam. He took it several times, and the last time the writing was in several colors of ink. This is the Chicago way. With a crime and murder rate that is out of control, Chicago wants no honest citizen to possess a handgun. The criminals are not deterred.
The Second Amendment Foundation ( I am a life member) was pushed aside by the NRA ( of which I am a member). But the NRA’s money machine is more powerful in DC than the Second Amendment Foundation can ever be. United we stand, divided we fall on this issue. Primarily, the NRA is a fund raising association, but it is in the top three lobbies. I believe it is second to AARP and just above the American Trucking Associations in spending in DC lobbying. As one of the Amscam congressmen stated about DC: ” Money Talks and B.S. walks.” Watch the movie ” Thank you for Smoking” for a little insight into lobbying.
Thanks Massad. Great writeup (as usual).
Phil, but allow me to respond to your question/suspicion with a rhetorical one.
Putting the arguments (P or I v. Due Process) aside, and putting aside the advocates of each … and putting aside which argument the court will use …
What would it matter if the NRA did claim credit (or at least some of it)? In my mind, this is about restoring freedom and not about the glory of doing so. Maybe the NRA will, and maybe they will not … but the bottom line is that we’ll enjoy expanded freedom, and we’ll know the truth about how it came to be.
So given that … yes, I do suspect you are being overly cynical.
Mr McDonald reminds me of the attempt by the NRA to help law-abiding inner-city residents defend themselves. The MSM howled that the NRA was trying to arm criminals. It didn’t say much about the media’s opinion of those besieged residents, did it? I believe this was back in the ’90s.
I cannot understand why the people have such a problem with the Second Article of the Bill of Rights. It, the Right to Bear Arms, is an inalienable Right. The Article clearly states that the Right CANNOT be infringed, therefore, why is there any confusion?
No government entity, state or otherwise, has any authority to infringe upon that inalienable Right, therefore, leave it alone since it is untouchable!
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional “gun” issue. Let’s re-state the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
Just a reminder, that the Second Amendment does not “give” Americans the right to bear arms, it GUARANTEES them the right, and if you’re anything approaching a strict constructionist or a libertarian, you’d say that any law written after the Second Amendment is illegal, in that the Second Amendment guarantees that the right to own firearms “shall not be infringed.” New laws technically infringe on that right because they modify how, and who, shall own firearms.
As for individuals or organizations “taking credit” for a potential reversal of city or state gun control laws, I don’t give a hoot or holler who takes credit, so long as overly restrictive laws are reversed or diminished in scope.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Security of a free stae does not mean the security of America. The free state is each state of the Union. Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. The Second Amendment itself declares that each and all of the States are to be FREE!
I ask again: Why this is even an issue? To me it’s a no-brainer when one puts the 2A in the context of the Bill of Rights.
Can a State or City abridge my free speech rights? No. Why? Because of the First Amendment.
Can the Governor of my State house national gaurd troops in my home? No. Why? Because of the Third Amendment.
Can a State or City search me or my property without probable cause or a search warrant? No. Why? Because of the 4th Amendment.
Can a State or County court force me to incriminate or testify against myself? No. Why? Because of the 5th Amendment.
So why is there even a question of what the States can do concerning the Second amendment? Seems to me that no State is allowed to violate THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND.
Gentlemen: lets focus on the problem, which is this: Mayor Dailey is simply a capo in the criminal apparatus of todays federal, state and local government. Of course they want you unarmed. Of course politicians surround themselves with body guards. Of course Dailey, Bush, Cheney and Obama are cowards who rule by force. The second amendment is the thin wall standing between you and helplessness when the swat team arrives to arrest you for not filling out the census form.
Hamilton, the monarchist that he was… was correct. Anyhow, I think this makes a pretty powerful case for the 2nd amendment:
Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
Now, note that Hamilton says: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
Hamilton could have very well said: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
The same can be said for religion.
Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
Hamilton was not really “anti-Bill of Rights.” His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: “… furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they … “might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”
If it is not restricted by the Constitution … nor delegated by the same … there is absolutely no power.
Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
Unfortunately, Hamilton’s worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.
I personally think that law abiding citizens should be able to own and bear arms. Having said that, I am in a dilemma about the jurisdiction of the 2nd amendment. It seems to me the 2nd amendment applies only to the national government and it’s ability to infringe on the right to bear arms (meaning that it is forbidden to infringe on that natural right). However, just because I agree with the premise of the 2nd amendment, I tend to disagree that it can be used to prevent the States and municipalities from governing the ownership and use of firearms. This reminds me of the debate on abortion. The national government overrode the State authorities preventing them from making abortion illegal. I am sure many of the same people who disagreed with the abortion situation are now supporting the national government in overriding a local authority. If we go down the path of always running to the national government with our local problems, it only adds to the growth of an already too large and unmanageable government. It would be better to try and change the local laws or, as a last resort, move to a more friendly habitat.
Thanks Mr. Ayoob.
D. Carver (comment just above) makes a great point:
The States Rights / Sovereignty movement is back of this 2nd amendment advance.
The Feds have overplayed their hand & now comes the pushback.
You can keep abreast of developments at:
– http://www.firearmsfreedomact(dot)com
– http://www.TenthAmendmentCenter(dot)com
Oops got that web address wrong:
Correction: http://firearmsfreedomact(dot)com
But the Tenth Amendment Center site is far more active & covers all aspects of asserting State Sovereignty including but not limited to firearms aspects. All our freedoms are at stake – defend one, defend all.
– May Patriots be vigilant & God save this Republic !
As all gun control law is grounded in the interstate commerce clause in aticle 1 sec. 8 of the COTUS ratified in 1787. Shouldn’t the 2nd amendment ratified in 1791 prevent the commerce clause from being used to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? I have run this question past quite a few lawyer types and the only ansewer i’v ever gotten is nobody thought of it. Why???!!
As a follow-up to a previous post I made, see http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/ where these ideas are explained in a more coherent fashion.
@Scott 3/11/10 0142:
You are spot on with your assessment. People often mistake the II Amendment as granting something. I does not. The right to defend one’s person, property, and loved ones is a human right preceding any statutory language. Amendment II expresses this fact and as stated, any…YES any subsequent laws barring firearm ownership/possession in any form violate the right expressed.
Everyone here seems to be on more or less the same page.
I would modify the “guarantees” statement slightly myself to say:
The Bill of Rights does not GRANT us anything. Is serves as an official observation of our inalienable rights and as a reminder to all members of governments present and future that these rights are NOT subject to modification nor interpretation. Hands off!
The problem will be, just like Heller, that “reasonable” restrictions will be allowed.
When ANY restriction on a fundamental human right is tolerated, it becomes merely a matter of degree.
I quit the NRA when they tried to prevent the suit against the California “assault weapons” ban. NRA might as well stand for “National Republican Association”.
The JPFO logo deliberately has a fully MODERN firearm in it, none of this easily dismissed flintlock stuff.
That fact that Hamilton, being the traitor he was, even advanced the Bill of Rights made it one of the first stakes through the heart of America. Everything was a fight for chicken scratch from then on. Just read the dang thing. It’s pecked through with holes big enough for an army of chicken turd elites to cluck through.
One law is enough… The Law of No Aggression (anthonygregory.com).
I will never understand why people do not read the history of this once great Republic to understand that they do not have Constitutional Rights. Their Rights are inalienable. The Constitution is a design of limited, restricted government. The Bill of Rights were added because the Anti-federalists did not believe that the Constitution would be any protection for the inalienable Rights of the people. The Framers erred by defining the Bill of Rights as amendments since they do not amend the Constitution. The Bill of Rights should have been defined as a series of Proclamations to command all future government ? servants ? to not infringe upon those inalienable Rights!
well, at least one or two people have a clue what they’re talking about…the 2A does NOT guarantee anything, it does NOT grant anything. the bill of rights ENUMERATES inalienable rights, what the forefathers considered “god-given”…that is to say, inherent rights – NOT granted by any governing body, nor guaranteed by any piece of paper…
it’d be nice if at least a meaningfull portion of people arguing pro-2A at least had the slightest clue about what they’re speaking instead of simply talking out their arses.
I guess the Department of Education believes in arming itself. Anybody havce any idea why they’re buying Remington 870 Police models (27 of ’em)? https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb68cf9f3fa2fe18a83d1c3dee0039b2&tab=core&_cview=0
I don’t think it’s for Trap & Skeet w/a 14″ barrel. Probably for bear control out west! Or maybe having screwed up “zero tolerance” they’ve given up & are just arming themselves.
Whoever imagined the Dept of Ed. had a “certified armor and combat training and protocol”?!?