by lisarichardsusa |
After 234 Years, the United States Supreme Court has finally recognized the Constitution’s Second Amendment as intended law for citizens. Americans fought for decades in order that the high court concede to the Second Amendment, allowing states to exercise individual rights to bear arms; Second Amendment proponents met with opposition and bills making firearms purchases difficult, enforcing strict waiting periods and background checks. Opponents asserted such regulations must be enforced because “…handguns are the principal instrumentality responsible for the increase in homicides in the country.”[1] Second Amendment supporters disagree, affirming the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, constitutionally intended. After decades of fighting and challenging legislation, the United States Supreme Court faced two infringement rights cases: one in particular would finally force the court to translate Second Amendment specifics; in doing so, the courts deemed the Second Amendment lawful unto citizens, providing individual rights for owning and carrying concealed firearms.
What is the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment does not specify withholding firearm rights from the people, so who is right; the Founders and the Constitution, or legislators who want gun bans?
The Second Amendment is not difficult to understand. It is not vague, rather specific in its wording. The original Virginia draft stated: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”[2] It was Jefferson’s intent Americans have rights to protect themselves with firearms. The final signed draft has a double clause stating 1), “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” and 2), “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Each state is to be protected by a “well regulated militia,” i.e., police law enforcement and National Guard. States cannot leave citizens unprotected. Also, according to the second clause, people have rights to own firearms that cannot be violated or contravened by state or federal government. British legal scholar St. George Tucker backed up Madison’s words in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed… under the specious pretext of preserving…the landed aristocracy…their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants…interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun…for the destruction of game…[3]
Founder William Rawle backed up Madison and Tucker, stating:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[4]
Justice Story, a Madison appointee noted:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[5]
The Founders were unambiguous. They knew what they enacted into law. They purposely granted privileges and rights protecting the individual self. “Well regulated” is specific, stating laws must be upheld by legal-bound lawmen, not rag-tag groups of recklesspeople forming personal militaries, taking control of state protection. Despite well thought-out laws, anti-gun lobbyists have sought every avenue to ban guns completely.
Guilt By Criminal Abuse
Laws stated and signed as supreme does not mean all agree. The Second Amendment does not sit well with opponents and never has. Challengers insist the Second Amendment does not apply to citizens, only military and police. Brady Bill supporters proclaimedAmerica the most violent country on earth[6] because of the Second Amendment: “…theUnited States citizens kill each other with firearms at a rate of 14.8 per hundred thousand.”[7]
However, this statement speaks of criminals who bypass laws, purchasing weapons illegally no matter what bills the U.S. has in place. False data and the Brady Bill made it difficult for obedient citizens to purchase firearms. Research, however, proves gun deaths occur mainly due to criminal activity via illegal guns sales, not abiding by the Second Amendment.[8] This brings up the question of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment double clause: clause two specifies “the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,” the other the right of a “standing militia.” The double clause has been at the forefront of gun debates for decades with legislators, activists, and justices’ arguing the Second Amendment does not hold for civilians, using the excuse that guns kill more people, and, if guns are banned, there will be less violent gun crimes.[9] [10]
Don’t Count You Bullets Before They’re Allowed to be Loaded
It took 234 years, and the entire twentieth century fighting anti-gun bills, but the United States Supreme Court finally accepted, and established, the Second Amendment as the right of all United States citizens.
Still, the 2010 ruling does not mean individual states, legislators, activists, and governors fighting against firearm ownership will not work to enforce tougher restrictions on gun purchasing.[11] Not all legislators and citizens, or President Obama and his anti-gun push to disarm the United States citizens, concur with the recent high court ruling,[12] preferring laws stay as they were. These anti-gun activists will continue pushing for a nationwide federal ban on all guns.
The Road to Recognition Begins
According to the Chicago, Illinois ruling in favor of the Second Amendment by the United States Supreme Court,[13] the Founding Fathers and U.S. Constitution were very plain in stating citizens, by right of citizenship, can legally own and carry firearms. Justice Samuel Alito stated:
Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted[14] [15]and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities. [16] [17]
Justice Stevens dissented stating:
The decision to keep a loaded handgun in the house is often motivated by the desire to protect life, liberty, and property. It is comparable…to decisions about…education and upbringing of one’s children. For it is the kind of decision that may have profound consequences for every member of the family, and…the world beyond…that may result in death or serious injury…that claim borders on the frivolous. Petitioners make no effort to demonstrate that the requirements are unreasonable or that they impose a severe burden on the underlying right they have asserted…[18]
Before we examine the Chicago case and ruling, we must examine American gun laws to understand why Americans fought for Second Amendment rights to be implemented. The road to the high court decision has been long and anti-gun laws have proven disastrous and ineffective. This is not simply the desire to employ one’s individual rights to own firearms; many Americans who fully support the Second Amendment do not own firearms for various reasons—fear of not knowing how to fire weapons properly in case of an emergency, concern children may mistake guns for toys, others rent weapons at shooting ranges, because it costs less to rent than pay state gun-ownership insurance. Whatever reason, firearms are an individual, constitutional choice many Americans want upheld, not appropriated by radical activist legislators and activist justices.
We shall start by examining whether or not gun restrictions and bans have worked to prevent crime in America, because this is the foundation of the Chicago case.
Gun Bans and Restrictions: Did They Work?
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and signed over two centuries ago, but the process of accepting Second Amendment rights has been a long, drawn out political fight for citizen rights with many states prohibiting firearms sales and ownership thereof. The Second Amendment specifies citizen’s right to bear arms, but anti-gun lobbyists fought against the amendment, pushing bans on specific firearms, listing them as “assault weapons.”[19] [20] [21] During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Attorney General Janet Reno declared: “I think it should be at least as hard to get a license to possess a gun as it is to drive an automobile.”[22] The reasoning was discussed in 1993 by Time Magazine, which said Australia and Great Britain placed such tough standards on purchasing guns, violent gun crimes were only 22 in the UK and 10 in Australia compared to 10, 567 in the United States. Time Magazine says this is because the UK prohibits gun ownership to non-gun club members. In Australia, only business owners and gun club members are allowed to own firearms. Time says this strict enforcement created very low death-by-gun crime rates in the two countries.[23] But how substantiated is the data?
The UK firearms prevention of non-gun club members has not prevented violent crimes. According to Dave Workman of the Examiner: in June of 2010, an active British gun club member went on a mass murdering shooting spree, killing “dozens” with “…a sporting shotgun and .22-caliber rifle.” Police investigations report the man did not own assault
weapons, i.e., automatic weapons, and “may have illegally owned those guns…” he used to murder.[24] CCRKB Chairman Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue notes:
American gun prohibitionists have frequently held up the gun laws of Great Britain as their model. They have created the impression that English-style gun laws would prevent outrages in this country. Today’s shooting spree, which apparently left victims in 30 different locations, should forever put the lie to this argument.[25]
Gary Lampo of the Cato Institute notes that statistics asserting other nations have lower gun crime rates is false. Switzerland and Israel offer guns and licenses to all citizens on demand without waiting periods and guns are “easily obtainable in both nations,” where carrying concealed weapons is permitted to all. As a result, Cato reports violent crime is low in both nations where “home firearm ownership… [is]…at least as high as those in theUnited States.”[26]
One question all should ask is if every American was allowed to own firearms, would criminals think twice before committing crimes against innocents? If criminals knew their victims might well be armed, and on an equal level to that of their attacker, would criminals be willing to commit crimes knowing they might encounter equal resistance. That question was answered in the 1998 book by Scholar John R. Lott titled More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control. Lott told Chicago University School of Law:
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.[27]
Fewer Guns, But More Gun Violence: Why?
For decades anti-gun lobbyists insisted fewer guns in America decreases crime. Yet anti-gun laws and severe purchasing restrictions led to skyrocketing sales of illegal guns and high crime.
Each time American schools are held hostage by armed and crazed students shooting classmates and teachers, gun bans are demanded. Yet students involved in violent gun crimes violated every gun restriction: “The Columbine Killers,” Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold illegally purchased 20 firearms. The two teenagers did what all criminals do— purchase weapons without entering gun stores and applying for gun permits. In fact, the two murdered fellow students with one illegally purchased TEC-9 handgun and two shotguns purchased by a girlfriend, with no prior criminal record, who was able to pass all background checks, proving austere gun laws do not preclude violent crimes.[28]
Anti-gun advocates argue against this claim, insisting heavy restrictions, or complete bans, will end violent gun crimes. Yet the Cato Institution produced research data evidencing waiting periods have been useless—before and after the 1993 enactment of the Brady Bill.[29] Murder and robbery rates have not declined due to wait-listing and background checks. As demonstrated with the Columbine murders, anyone can illegally purchase firearms through any means if so desired. Gun laws do not prevent crime. Perhaps we should ask if bans are in reality aiding and abetting violent crime, because Chicago had tough bans and gun crimes escalated, leading to the recent Chicago ruling.
Despite Time Magazine’s claims, data proves anti-gun claims incorrect: the enactment of “The Brady Bill Handgun Violence Protection Act,” meant to deter and prevent violent crimes and murder by gun use, has done the opposite:
California had more murders and other violent crimes than any state in 1993. Despite a 15- day waiting period on all firearm sales (retail and private; rifle, pistol and shotgun) its violent crime and murder rates were, respectively, 54% and 46 higher than the rates for the rest of the country…Los Angeles had the third highest number of violent crimes (83,701), including the second highest number of murders (1,076). New York had the second highest number of murders and other violent crimes among the states…N.Y.C…had the most violent crimes (153,543), including the most murders (1,946). California and New York, just two of the original 18 ‘Brady-exempt’ states, together had more violent crimes than the total of 29, and more murders than the total of 28, of the 32 states originally subject to the five-day wait…murder numbers in 1993 included Chicago (handguns banned since 1982), 845; Detroit, 579; Baltimore, 353; St. Louis, 267; Kansas City, 153; Milwaukee, 157; and Oakland, 154. Six of the 10 U.S. cities with the most murders, and 17 of the 30 cities with 100+ murders, in 1993 were ‘Brady-exempt.’[30]
Pushing gun bans did not reduce violent crimes. Abolishing firearms sales, restrictions, and waiting periods, did not diminish crime or prevent illegal sales of guns to drug dealers and inner city gangs. In fact, “During 1992, the most recent year of data available when the Brady bill was passed, California, the state with the most restrictive waiting period law (15 days on all firearm sales, retail and private) had total violent crime and murder rates 58% and 44% higher, respectively, than the rates for the rest of the country.”[31] Stringent statutes for purchasing firearms does not prevent illegal weapons sales to criminals, the real problem America faces when it comes to guns. This was the dilemma Chicagoans, the home town of President Obama, faced and fought.
As John R. Lott notes:
[O]ften-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don’t understand is That this ‘acquaintance murder’ number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. ‘Acquaintance’ covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.[32]
Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals escalates death. Violent crime and gun bans in the District of Columbia led to the recent high court ruling for Chicago and the United States.
District of Columbia v. Heller
In 2008, Washington D.C. won its rights for the citizens to “bear arms” in the case ofDistrict of Columbia v. Heller.[33] The decision, as noted by the Heritage Foundation, “…struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept ‘unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock’ in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave.”[34] Locking unloaded and disassembled firearms left victims at the mercy of criminals wielding fully loaded, working guns. Evidence exemplified proves anti-gun laws fail. District of Columbia citizens took their case to the high court and fought for their Founder’s-given rights to keep and bear arms and protect themselves in a city with a high rate of violent crime.
Why did the acknowledgement of the Second Amendment take so long? What made the
high court take on the Second Amendment and rule in its favor? After the District of Columbia won its citizen’s rights to bear arms, Chicago, Illinois filed for those same rights. In doing so, a firestorm kicked off, exposing dirty secrets about President Obama’s home town of Chicago, and, to whom the city decided had rights to firearm ownership and who did not.
Chicago has a long history of crime; citizens in inner city sections have been threatened by crime they believed city leadership ignored while violating their rights to defend themselves against crime. This was Chicago’s biased firearm law, which made it difficult for law-abiding black Chicagoans to protect themselves against violent crime and one gentleman who fought the discriminatory anti-gun laws and won.
The Right of White Chicagoans Only to Keep and Bear Arms
Chicago has long had a racist way of doling out guns escalated violent crime. Chicago placed a partial ban on inner city black citizen gun purchases. Chicago’s reasons; this ban would prevent minority gang members from buying guns. But the law violated law-abiding citizens rights to the Second Amendment based on color, causing innocent citizens to live in fear, while becoming victims of violent crimes by illegal firearms. According to the Examiner: “The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA)[35] points to a much more ominous issue with this proposed legislation.
Richard Pearson, the Executive Director of ISRA, says:
Law-abiding African Americans and Hispanics would take it on the chin under a bill now moving through the Illinois General Assembly. Sponsored by Rep. Harry Osterman (D-14), HB6123[36] would prohibit any person or entity from selling a firearm to a so-called ‘street gang member.’ This prohibition applies even if the individual has passed a Brady Law FBI background check. Making a prohibited sale would result in Class 1 felony charges and possible jail time for the seller […] HB6123 promotes racial profiling at its worst.
Popular culture has branded urban minorities with the “gangsta’ stereotype that is pervasive well beyond the confines of actual criminal enterprises. Today’s fashion, music, slang and lifestyle are all heavily influenced by the urban experience. Given that the provisions of HB6123 establish no test for determining ‘street gang’ membership, and given the harsh penalties for violating the proposed law, it is understandable that retailers would shy away from selling firearms to persons whose speech, dress, mannerisms, or taste in music reflect the urban lifestyle.
Guilt by skin color forced inner-city citizens to live in fear. Law-abiding citizens were not strictly prohibited purchasing firearms, waiting periods and background checks for minorities was too long, placing citizens in situations of having to fight for their lives. One law-abiding gentleman, Otis McDonald, who lives in Chicago’s inner city village known as Oak Park. He was the constant victim of gang violence. According to Justice Alito:
Several of the Chicago petitioners have been the targets of threats and violence. For instance, McDonald, who is in his late seventies, lives in a high-crime neighborhood. He is a community activist involved with alternative policing strategies, his efforts to improve his neighborhood subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers.[37]
McDonald, ignored for years by the city and state, decided to fight back, taking his case to the Supreme Court, demanding it uphold and recognize Chicago citizens, and all Americans’ rights to protect themselves under the Second Amendment.
One Man’s Fight for the Constitution
Second Amendment recognition was in large part due to Otis McDonald not backing down from demanding his and all rights Americans constitutional rights.
In April 2008, Otis McDonald, a retired veteran, who served this nation for 40 years, was tired of being a victim of violent crime. He applied for a license and purchase of a .22 caliber handgun “even though I knew I would probably be denied.”[38] McDonald said “I had come to realize what it meant to so many and the country …when I was a child, my mother told me, Otis, if you don’t find something in this life that you are willing to fight for, than you really haven’t lived.”[39] McDonald fought for the right to live unharmed.
McDonald served 40 years in the armed forces, fighting and protecting the United States. When he returned home, he found he lost his personal right to protect his individual life. Serving in the military, McDonald was allowed to protect America from enemies abroad with weapons, but here, at home, on U.S. soil, he was forbidden to own a firearm to protect his own life in Chicago due to his skin color and address.
McDonald begged for help without consideration to his rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness from the city of Chicago. McDonald has been a community activist fighting for citizen’s protection from gang violence through “alternative policing strategies” of citizens owning firearms to protect one’s homes from violence not policed by local legislation.[40] Fellow citizens fought alongside Mr. McDonald for assistanceagainst gang violence, but to no avail. Chicago only took notice of gang member’s skin color, making the erroneous decision to judge all firearms sales to inner-city residents of color by just that—color. The result; law-abiding citizens like McDonald lived in fear without the allowance of civil rights.[41]
This is your friendly neighborhood left-wing democrat anti-gun policy!
Chicago community speakers advocating for concealed carry cited statistics stating “women with guns are less likely to be raped, contended handgun bans are efforts to keep black people unarmed, and stressed gun ownership is a right—not a requirement.”[42] The Second Amendment does not demand citizens bear arms; it gives citizens the right, freedom to choose. The people of Chicago asked only for the right to protect themselves, not commit gun violence.
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
On June 28, 2010 the United States Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment as applying to all citizens in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois. The case that drove home the final decision in Chicago was the District of Columbia Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The high court noted:
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.[43]
Chicago citizen’s rights to bear arms had been violated. Heller proved Chicagoans had a chance to fight and win and they did. Legislators and city politicians, who favor gun control and bans on minorities, violated the Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of Chicago citizens to be “secure in the persons.” Justice Alito explained in his opinion: “…that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases’narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected.”[44]
Chicago gun bans were illegal, granting rights to bear arms to a few select. Denying justice based on skin color and address is an abusive contravention of civil rights. Forswearing Second Amendment rights is an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Justice Alito noted “incorporates the second Amendment right…”[45]
Justice Alito explained why the Second Amendment had not been recognized for so long:
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States…but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system. Four years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court held in the Slaughter House Cases, that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only those rights ‘which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws,’…and that the fundamental rights predating the creation of the Federal Government were not protected by the Clause, id., at 76. Under this narrow reading, the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only very limited rights.Id., at 79–80. Subsequently, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government in Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser, 116 U. S. 252… Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms applies to the States is considered in light of the Court’s precedents applying the Bill of Rights’ protections to the States…The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.[46]
The Second Amendment is recognized, the high court ruled in favor of the Founder’s Amendment specifications. Justice Alito wrote:
Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specifically unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.[47]
Justice Clarence Thomas’ statement is important. He clearly observes Second Amendment specifications cannot be infringed upon:
The Fourteenth Amendment…provides, ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are ‘written to be understood by the voters…’ The objective of this inquiry is to discern what ‘ordinary citizens’ at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. [48]
They May Be Judges, But They’re Not Fat Ladies
Former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley opposed the high court ruling, saying he would draft new gun ordinances, making it further difficult to purchase firearms: “I’m disappointed by the decision, but it’s not surprising. We’re still reviewing the entire decision, but it means that Chicago’s current handgun ban is unenforceable, so we’re working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect 2nd Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence.”[49] Justice Alito replied: “Despite doomsday proclamations, extending the reach of the 2nd Amendment does not imperil every law regulating firearms…reasonable regulations” on firearms will remain in place, as will certain gun restrictions, such as those placed on convicted felons, the mentally ill, school firearms bans, and restrictions placed on carrying firearms into federal government buildings.[50] With new Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who knows what will happen in Chicago with the ruling in favor of the citizen’s rights.
Public Opinion
On June 29, 2010, Robert Barnes and Dan Eggan of The Washington Post wrote:
The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind Of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an ‘avalanche’ of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation. But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court’s dominant conservatives, said: ‘It is clear that the Framers…counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.'[51]
In July of 2010, Kurt Hofman of the St. Louis Examiner quoted the Chicago Sun Times Report on a Chicago town hall meeting on carrying guns: “Emotions ran high at Chicago State University, where gun rights advocates looked to convince area African-Americans that ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry guns to avoid becoming victims. Chicago community speakers advocating for concealed carry cited statistics that women with guns are less likely to be raped, and contended that handgun bans are efforts to keep black people unarmed, and stressed that gun ownership is a right—not a requirement.”[52]
David G. Savage of the Tribune Washington Bureau told The LA Times “The high court overturned 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment restricted only federal gun laws, not local or state measures. The decision will almost certainly void ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., that forbid residents to have handguns at home. The justices ruled in favor of the Chicago residents who wish to have guns and sent the case back to Chicago for a lower court to issue a final ruling.”[53]
McDonald said of the ruling:
When I heard Justice Thomas’ reading, and how far reaching back that it meant, it Was really, really touching, and my mother and father would have been proud of me. I feel like I have done something for others and it’s really important, because, I feel that I have done something for the country. I didn’t do all of that fighting and All of that struggling and all of that putting my life out there on the line, and going to the Supreme Court and winning this case to have it moved out…In this [2010] race, if there are people out there who believe as I believe, and feel as I feel, then they will want to preserve what I have accomplished in the Supreme Court decision, and vote for their beliefs. Every man that says that, he will protect what we have accomplished.[54]
All It Takes is One Person to Make a Difference
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has long been argued as belonging solelyto military and police. Second Amendment rights have been the forefront of political elections for decades. McDonald established his fight had nothing to do with party politics, rather everything to do with American citizens rights to live secure and free without physical and constitutional violations. McDonald’s fight was for all of us, whether we own firearms or not; McDonald fought so Americans do not lose what was written and signed into law by our Founders 234 years-ago—our individual constitutional rights. After 234 Years, the United States Supreme Court finally recognized the Constitution’s Second Amendment; it is intended law for citizens.
[1] Uniform Crime Reports , supra note 8, at 11. In 1992, firearms were used in 31% of all murders, robberies and aggravated assaults. In 1988, that figure had only been 26%. Id.
[2] Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Writings, “Public Papers: Draft Constitution For Virginia, IV. Rights, Private And Public,” June 1776, (New York: The Library of America, 1984), 334.
[3] St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries with Notes or Reference to The Constitution And Laws of the Federal Government Of The United States And Of The Commonwealth Of Virginia, Philadelphia, 1803,http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm
[4] William Rawle, A View Of The Constitution Of The United States Of America,Philadelphia, 1829, http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.html
[5] Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution Of The United States, 1833, http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm
[6]Richard M. Aborn, “The Battle Over the Brady Bill and the Future of Gun Control Advocacy,” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 22 (1995): 417. Fordham University School of Law, http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/aborn1.html
[7] 43 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report , No. 6, Tbl. 18 (Dec. 8, 1994).
[8] University of Chicago School of Law, “Interview With John R. Lott, Author ofMore Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control,”http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
[9] NRA-ILA, “Anti-Gun Lobbying Organizations, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14
[10] Bob Livingston, Personal Liberty Digest, “Anti-Gun Organizations Join Forces to Boost Advocacy Efforts,” May 5, 2010, http://www.personalliberty.com/news/anti-gun-organizations-join-forces-to-boost-advocacy-efforts-19643432/
[11] Wayne, La Pierre, Human Events, “The Gathering Storm Over Guns, May 1, 2009, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31679
[12] MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[13] McDONALD ET AL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[14] See Brief for Heartland Institute as Amicus Curiae 6–7 (noting that handgun murder rate was 9.65 in 1983 and 13.88 in 2008).
[15] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[16] Brief for Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 8–9 (“In 2002 and again in 2008, Chicago had more murders than any other city in the U. S., including the much larger Los Angeles and New
[17] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[18] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[19] State Of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Criminal Jury Instructions, “Assault Weapon,” http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
[20] Ken Dixon, The Connecticut Post, “Blumenthal: State’s Assault-Weapons Ban can Withstand Challenge,” July 7, 2010, http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Blumenthal-State-s-assault-weapon-ban-can-568773.php
[21] Ken Dixon, The Connecticut Post, “Ruling on Gun Ban May Have impact on Connecticut Assault Weapons,” June 28, 2010, http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Ruling-on-gun-ban-may-have-impact-on-Connecticut-540291.php
[22] Richard Lacayo; Edward Barnes and Andrea Sachs/New York and Elaine Shannon/Washington, “Crime: Beyond the Brady Bill,” Time Magazine, Monday Dec. 20, 1993, time.com, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979850,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979850,00.html#ixzz13xWrTcx0
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979850,00.html#ixzz13xWrTcx0
[23] Time Magazine
[24] Dave Workman, The Examiner, “After today's UK mass shooting, what makes gun banners think British laws would work here?,” June 2, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/after-today-s-uk-mass-shooting-what-makes-gun-banners-think-british-laws-would-work-here
[25] Dave Workman
[26] Gary Lampo, “Gun Control: Myths and Realities,” Cato Institute, may 13, 2000, cato.org, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
[27] University of Chicago School of Law, “Interview With John R. Lott, Author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control,”http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
[28] Gary Lampo, “Gun Control: Myths and Realities,” Cato Institute, may 13, 2000, cato.org, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
[29] Lampo
[30]NRA-ILA, The “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act:” Does It Live Up To Its Name?,” nraila.org, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=73
[32] University of Chicago School of Law, “Interview With John R. Lott, Author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control,”http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
[33] District of Columbia v. Heller, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
[34] Hans Von Spakovsky, “Protecting the Second Amendment: (Just Barely There),” The Heritage Foundation, June 28, 2010, heritage.org, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/28/protecting-the-second-amendment-but-just-barely/
[35] Illinois State Rife Association, http://isra.org/
[36]HB6123, http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=6123&GAID=10&GA=96&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=52103&SessionID=76
[37] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[38] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUP0j4LiuK4
[39] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUP0j4LiuK4
[40] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[41] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[42] Kurt Hofman, “Black Community Embracing McDonald Decision?” St. Louis Examiner, July 1, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/black-community-embracing-mcdonald-decision
[43] MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1521. Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[44]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[45] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[46] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[47] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[48] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[49] David Savage, Katherine Skiba, Cynthia Dizikes, Chicago Breaking News Center, “Daley: Will City Revise Gun Law After Supreme Court Ruling?,” June 28, 2010,
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html
[50] David Savage, Katherine Skiba, Cynthia Dizikes
[51] Robert Barnes and Dan Eggan,The Washington Post, “Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms,” June 29, 2010,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html
[52] Kurt Hofman, “Black Community Embracing McDonald Decision?” St. Louis Examiner, July 1, 2010, http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/black-community-embracing-mcdonald-decision
[53] David G. Savage, The LA Times, “Supreme Court Extends Rights of Gun Owners,” June 29, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/29/nation/la-na-court-guns-20100629
[54] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUP0j4LiuK4
No comments:
Post a Comment