Hello, This is about a very important upcoming case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. In Chicago you cannot legally own a handgun for self defense, and have not been able to since 1982, unless of course your a criminal who could care less about whats legal. Mr. McDonald has filed a suit that in essence says his Second Amendment rights, (note: along with every honest citizen of Chicago) has been unconstitutionally taken away by Chicago ‘law makers’, (Obama’s buddy’s).
Pay attention, on March 2, 2010 this case will be argued before the Supreme Court. Normally we as Americans should not feel anxiety over what the outcome would be concerning our rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Courts job, supposedly, is to unbiasedly interpret the Constitution, period. That is where the anxiety comes in, based on the Heller case in 2008, Heller v. the District of Columbia, where the Supreme Court decided along purely ideological party lines, 5 to 4, in what should have been a unanimous decision. Heller and the American people won that case in favor of the individuals right to own firearms in D.C. for protection, by only one vote. It was that close vote that showed me how fragile or rights have become, and how corrupted members of the Supreme Court have become. The left wing, anti gun justices voted against gun ownership, it was clearly along party lines. Be afraid, be very afraid when that is how our rights will be decided.
The Supreme Court will be deciding if the states will have the same rights that D.C. (a federal enclave) now enjoys. The answer should be a clear ‘yes’, but with the recent nomination of Sotomayor, who stated in a past decision, as a member of a New York appeals court, “the Second Amendment did not apply to the states”. So I suppose in her twisted view, the Second Amendment was written for some other country?
McDonald’s case is backed by 38 states that argue the Second Amendment should protect people against city and state regulation because the right to bear arms is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice”. Personally I wonder why there are not 50 states backing the McDonald case, when did the other 12 states go communist?
The anti -gun group, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and two other police groups, (no less) have joined their anti Second Amendment forces in a “friend to the court brief” cautioning how a Supreme Court decision could affect gun regulations, (they really mean ‘restrictions’) nation wide. GOOD! Can you say “Police State”?
I feel that the police chiefs are upset that they may lose their dictatorial and arbitrary discretion leverage over honest citizens. Most of these Chiefs are unqualified, appointed political hacks, that are true only to their anti Constitution, left wing political masters, (the progressives). I do not put much weight behind their feigned ‘concern’ for the rights or safety of honest American citizens, they should be more concerned in curbing crime, not defeating our Second Amendment! It is hard for me to believe any of them were even born in America, certainly not my America! I am sure they would be in their glory if America were a police state.
Everyone should be watching this McDonald v. City of Chicago case closely this year, watch how the Supreme Court justices rule. What should be a unanimous decision, based in honest interpretation of the Constitution as intended by our Founders, I fear will not be very honest, but instead will be along ideological ‘left vs. right’ party lines, which, in their position, should be unconscionable, and not how the Supreme court was intended to work.
Mark Shean- written 2-28-2010 www.mafirearmsafety.com
UPDATE: We The People, along with the Second Amendment have won. The Supreme court has ruled, 5-4 that the Second Amendment is the individuals right to keep and bear arms! It is officially the law of the land. Now we can begin to see draconian anti gun laws all over the country begin to crumble as challenges to them are made! But, the vote was along party lines which means four of those ‘honerable’ justices were not true to the Constitution and our Founders meaning. It could have easily gone the other way and plunged the country into civil war, because they feel ‘party’ is more important than country.