Landmark 2nd Amendment Rights Case to be Decided

On Tuesday March 2nd, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago. The outcome of this case may be crucial in determining the very nature and scope of gun laws in America for generations. The final decision for this case will likely be handed down in a few months.

What is at stake here is whether private citizens have the right to own and possess handguns when a city passes laws to the contrary. Mr. McDonald is a Chicago resident and lives, shall we say, in the decidedly more dangerous south side of the city. He wants to exercise his second amendment right to keep and bear arms so that he may defend his own personal safety. The City of Chicago says he does not have this right, and unfortunately the 7th Circuit Court wrongly ruled with the City of Chicago on this case. The case has accordingly been appealed and now heard by the Supreme Court.

It is sad and more than a little foolish when one is forced to appeal to the highest court in the land in order to exercise a right that is expressly espoused in our Bill of Rights.

I understand all of the gun-control crowd's opinions to the contrary, but they are absolutely wrong. They state that the 2nd amendment is an antiquated amendment which provided for the purpose of permitting the government to allow citizens the right to keep and bare arms for the defense of the country as a militia.

This is absolute nonsense. There are tomes of historical letters and books from our founders that prove my point to be correct. I could enumerate one reason after another of why we the people were given the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but the bottom line is this:

The body of the Constitution explains the duties and restrictions placed upon the federal government. It, in effect, spells out and limits the government's powers.

The Bill of Rights provides for and articulates our individual God-given rights to which WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America are entitled. The second amendment does NOT spell out an additional right of the federal government to allow for the forming of a militia with the people. It declares the right of the people to arms for themselves. It is a right of the people, just as the rest of the Bill of Rights are enumerated rights for the people; for the individual; NOT for the government.

This was correctly decided in 2008 in the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. Similarly, one hopes that the SCOTUS will adjudicate justly in this current case before them. If not, the City of Chicago will be able to enforce their ban on hand-guns for law abiding citizens. Mr. McDonald will not legally be allowed a firearm with which to protect himself. The criminal element all around him will certainly not abide by the ban.

If this were to be the outcome of the case, Mr. McDonald and likely all of us that live in cities with similar such gun control laws would effectively be legally disarmed. We would become easier prey to those that have no intention of abiding by any such laws.

Luckily, I suspect the Supreme Court understands what is at stake here and will judge wisely.

After oral arguments last Tuesday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox commented:

“We are optimistic the Court will hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This view is shared by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general and the majority of the American people. We look forward to the decision from the Court later this Term.”

I pray that Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Cox's, as well as my own optimism towards the final settlement of this case is not unfounded. Some time around June we will all see if one of our most important Constitutional rights still legally remains intact.