Bill of Rights vs Chicago et al
While America's presidential poster child for narcissism strives to erode the nation's status as the world's pre-eminent superpower, abandons interests and allies overseas, and interjects mammoth debt and statist bureaucracy on the home front, another test of constitutional liberty has quietly taken the stage.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on September 30 that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.
At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Case focus
In a June ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. The Seventh Circuit opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.
However, many legal scholars believe the Seventh Circuit was incorrect when it claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th-century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment.
In fact, scholars believe that the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the earlier Ninth Circuit panel decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In other words, a proper incorporation analysis such as that found under Nordyke v. Alameda County supports the application of the Constitution's Second Amendment to states and local governments.
Implications
The Supreme Court will be deciding nothing less than the question of whether all levels of government shall respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout the United States of America, regardless of where they live.
It is no understatement to say that the upcoming decision will be a pivotal moment in American constitutional rule of law.
In the historic 2007 District of Columbia vs Heller decision (pdf document), the Supreme Court reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and that it applies to all Americans.
However, because the finding involved a federal district, special-interest detractors amazingly claim that as such, a Bill of Rights Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America does not therefore apply to states or local government.
And in the Windy City? Chicago, to its shame, is annually at or near the top of the list when it comes to violent crime, despite its Draconian firearms ban. It also statistically verifiable that this dubious distinction is shared by other American cities where harsh gun restrictions or outright bans prevent decent, law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and property.
Criminals know, politicians don't care
Unlike ideology-driven politicians and special-interest activists, criminals are very aware of the fact that honest citizens in such jurisdictions cannot defend themselves. Violent criminals know and count on the fact that they are confronting easy marks -- helpless victims.
According to NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, "It's time that the fundamental right of self-defense is respected by every jurisdiction throughout the country. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will find, once and for all, that all law-abiding Americans have the God-given, constitutionally-protected right of self-defense, no matter what city, county or state they call home."
Amen, brother.
Hype and Chains.