Kill Chicago's Gun-Ban?
The lamestream media told you:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The left and right are gearing up for a major Bill Of Rights smackdown at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2. Chicago's gun-ban law, and total arrogance toward the Second Amendment, is on the chopping block.
Long-time activist Ken Rineer in Tucson staunchly supports his contention that if we win McDonald v. Chicago we may weaken 2A by subjecting it to increased federal rule.
The 14th Amendment is at the heart of this case -- states cannot deny the rights you have as an American. That's at odds with principles of federalism -- states have powers and abilities separate from federal control, sometimes but inaccurately referred to as "states' rights." People have rights, governments (if they're legitimate) only have delegated powers, from the consent of the governed.
So is Illinois bound by the Second Amendment, or not? If we win, Chicago's gun ban falls. If we lose, Chicago's gun ban stays, and others will try to start their own bans. But:
Ken says, "If we 'lose' McDonald v. Chicago, it's not necessarily a bad thing, because it will make more robust the state renditions of RKBA. It might even generate a Kelo effect, with states jumping up to the challenge of strengthening their own Second Amendment versions at the local level, and weakening federal efforts at usurpation.
"No matter what Congress does or doesn't do, the natural-law values of freedom should trump 'legal' action."
The majority of gun policy experts I've spoken with discount this argument, vigorously pushing for and hoping to bind the states to the Bill of Rights. This has led to enormous support in this gun case even from the anti-gun-rights left, who see a win having enormous potential for advancing all sorts of wacky civil-rights causes, with federal authority as a club to hit states with. That's dangerous, since some of these claimed civil rights are artificial inventions or distortions of the Bill of Rights itself.
A key example is the so-called separation of church and state, which is not in our founding documents. The BOR prohibits government from making any law limiting the free expression of religious belief. Leftists have used the courts to turn that upside down. The first case was minor in 1947, the big bang came in 1962, with feds now literally prohibiting free expression of religious belief (see "America's Godly Heritage" for a concise coverage of the issue).
I have been granted a reserved seat at the U.S. Supreme Court for the oral arguments, and plan to issue eyewitness reports from there, as I did with the Heller case. I hope we have chosen the right path. Time will tell.