Texas Upholds the 2nd Amendment or Does it?

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- The Constitution is the guiding instrument of American society, so it is not surprising that issues dealing with the document or its amendments command the highest level of attention and tend to create controversy.

One of the more controversial provisions of the Constitution is the Second Amendment, in which [god] grants Americans the “right to keep and bear arms.” Despite having been ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment continues to be a subject of fervent debate, and the amendment was implicated in Jennings v. McCraw, a lawsuit decided in Texas district court Thursday. The suit found the National Rifle Association denied in its attempt to overturn a Texas law barring 18- to 20-year-old Texans from carrying concealed weapons.

Although the litigation focused on the legitimacy of a Texas state law, Jennings implicated questions of criminal and Constitutional interpretation. According to the NRA and three Texans serving as plaintiffs, the Texas gun statutes violated both the Second and Fourteenth amendments, the latter containing the oft-cited Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs called the Texas laws unconstitutional and discriminatory, but U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings disagreed, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant acts as a dismissal, as meeting the standard indicates that a judge feels it impossible for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff.

The NRA’s counsel also moved for summary judgment, but the motion was denied by Judge Cummings, who dismissed another case in which the NRA challenged the constitutionality of gun restrictions in September 2011. According to Judge Cummings, the Texas law in question did not violate the Second Amendment which criminology experts hold that it “does not confer a right that extends beyond the home.”

As with any litigation involving Constitutional interpretation, the question of how accurately the framers’ intent is channeled through the decision will be questioned. Anti-gun organizations and the Brady Center, a legal action project focused on controlling gun violence that intervened in the case on behalf of the defendants, hailed the decision as a victory in which the Constitution was upheld.

However, the Second Amendment has been interpreted more broadly in the past, as in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In its opinion, the Court noted that the amendment protects firearm possession and use for “traditionally lawful purposes,” as the plaintiffs in Jennings wished to. Such decisions have not prevented states from being restrictive, however.

In Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86 (1968), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment’s use of the term “militia” made it applicable only to organized militias, such as the National Guard.

Clearly, such inconsistent interpretation is at best confusing and inconvenient, and is an impedance to the creation and enforcement of effective laws. While the aforementioned opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court is hardly the standard, such decisions indicate that the Second Amendment may not always receive the deference it deserves.

Similarly, the Jennings decision suggests that the doctrine of federal preemption may be subject to erosion, an issue that has consequences reaching far beyond the Second Amendment and affecting the integrity of the Constitution as a whole.

About:
Marina Salsbury planned on becoming a teacher since high school, but found her way instead into online writing after college. She currently writes on a variety of topics, but always seems to veer back to education-related articles. She currently writes for a masters degree website.

Is it legal for me to clean my guns on my open front porch or in a detached garage?

FirearmsTruth.com

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were decided in favor of gun rights three and two years ago respectively.

Those of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment Rights were jubilant that finally the Supreme Court cleared up the issue in our favor. But as FirearmsTruth reported back then, not all issues were clearly defined by The Court.

Some jurisdictions, like the city of Chicago, disregarded the spirit of the McDonald holding and put as many bureaucratic obstacles against gun ownership as they could. Since Heller was decided three years ago, there have been over 400 legal challenges to constitutionally protected firearms possession. Most of these lower court rulings have been in favor of gun control.

Heller and McDonald make clear that a law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm for home self-protection. But does this right extend beyond the inside of the home, and if so, how far?

For example, is it legal for me to clean my handgun on my open front porch or in a detached garage? If I am traveling to a shooting range by car how must my firearm be secured? Can it be loaded? What about travel by foot?

Lower federal and state courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of local or state restrictions.

Maryland’s highest state court was quite blunt in one of its decisions in favor of gun control: “If the Supreme Court … means its holdings to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

In the Maryland case, Charles Williams Jr. was convicted for transporting a firearm in public without a permit. He put the gun in a bag before traveling from his girlfriend’s house to his own. William’s attorney, Stephan Halbrook, argues that the Maryland law requiring a travel permit is unconstitutional because “basically ordinary people can’t get one.”

I want to know how you are supposed to get your firearm home from the store in Maryland. Do the police deliver and how much should you tip them?

Some of the restrictive ruling by lower courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully The Court will hear one or more of these and give clear guidelines on how restrictive gun control laws can be when it comes to the 2nd Amendment outside the home.

About John Kullman:
John Kullman holds a jurist doctorate from Thomas Cooley Law School, and a dual bachelor degree in English and Speech, as well as a minor in History from Central Michigan University. He previously was employed with Haliburton and Long & Wetzel. He is the managing editor of Firearmstruth.com, and is avid guns right advocate.

Another Brick in the Wall for Gun Owner Rights - Image: Oleg Volk

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- (Washington DC, June 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of the United States delivered another victory to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Monday when they declared Chicago’s handgun ban to be unconstitutional in the case of McDonald et al v. Chicago.

The real question in the case, which was managed and funded by the Seattle-based Second Amendment Foundation, was whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution restricts only the federal government or whether it also applies to state and local jurisdictions. In a 5-4 decision the Court majority held that the Second Amendment did indeed apply to the states under provisions of the 14th Amendment.

McDonald marks the second landmark Supreme Court victory for Second Amendment supporters (and lead attorney Alan Gura) in just 3 years. In June 2008 the Court’s Heller decision overturned Washington, DC’s handgun ban and declared that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, but they were careful to keep their opinion very narrowly focused on just the circumstances represented in that case – gun bans in a federal enclave. With McDonald the impact spreads to encompass every level of government in every state in the Union. But, as in Heller, the Court was careful to include language supporting some limitations on the right, leaving gun control advocates hopeful that they can continue their harassment campaign against gun owners, and leaving rights advocates wondering what is ambiguous about the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?”

The Court’s 5-4 split in this case was disheartening, just as their identical split in Heller was. When the McDonald case was argued I predicted that the final decision would be split and that there would be several separate concurring and dissenting opinions. I was right about that as there were three written opinions in favor of the decision and two in opposition. I had hoped for a more favorable split of 6-3 or even 7-2 in this case since it really was an obvious conclusion, but just as I did before the Heller case, I underestimated the lengths to which some Supreme Court Justices will go to reach the conclusion they wish to reach regardless of the evidence before them.

Of all of the 9 Justices and their 5 concurring and dissenting opinions, only Justice Clarence Thomas really got it right. Justice Thomas joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito in declaring the Second Amendment applies to the states and overturning Chicago’s handgun ban as a violation of that amendment, but only Justice Thomas based his decision on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the Due Process clause that the others relied on.

As a practical matter the mechanism used to apply the right to arms to the states makes little difference. What matters is that it is applied. The application doesn’t change one way or the other, but many constitutional scholars were hoping that this case would be the key to correcting an outrageous opinion of the Court from 137years ago which emasculated the, then new 14th Amendment and paved the way for Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction South.

Along with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito and the divergent concurrence written by Justice Thomas, Justice John Paul Stevens filed a rambling contradictory dissent, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing rebuttal to Stevens dissent, and Justice Breyer authored a dissent which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

I had expected emotional nonsense from Justice Stevens whose hoplophobia is worn on the sleeve of his robe, but I had thought that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer might at least concur with Justice Thomas’ position on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment even if they went on to weasel out of actually applying the Second Amendment to the states and throwing out Chicago’s handgun ban. Instead they simply hid behind a few specious arguments and refused to treat the right to arms as a real right. The dissent is outrageous enough to remove all doubt as to Sonya Sotomayor’s animosity toward the Second Amendment and should fuel opposition to confirmation of Elena Kagan who worked on gun control policy in the Clinton Administration and once lumped NRA in with the KKK as “Bad Guy Orgs.”

In the final analysis, the McDonald decision is just one more brick in the wall being built to protect the right to arms. It’s a big, heavy brick which, combined with Heller, serves as a good foundation. The court cases will continue as the lawyers and judges try to sort out just what restrictions might be allowable under the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” edict, but the real fight remains, as it always has, in the political arena and the election of politicians who have a healthy respect and understanding of Second Amendment issues and firearms ownership.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

National Rifle Association

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

“This is a landmark decision,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment — as every citizen’s constitutional right — is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued 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 same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

“This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.

“Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today’s opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

(Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, has been following the McDonald v. Chicago case closely. Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting AzCDL’s amicus brief for this case. The following is Alan’s synopsis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision.)

Arizona Citizens Defense League

Catalina, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The big headline in the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban-case decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, is that the states are now bound by the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment and applies to the states, under the Due Process clause used to apply other Bill of Rights requirements to the states.

Exactly how bound the states are is unknown, and will be the subject of endless debate and future court actions. No standard of review for acceptable laws is provided, although the extremely low and virtually meaningless standard of “interest balancing” that Breyer would like to see is apparently off the table. This leaves legislatures and lower courts to pretty much do as they please, and seek further SCOTUS clarification in the years to come.

The decision does however give the pro-rights forces a strong leg up at the bargaining table.

The very troubling sub-head of the story is that Chicago apparently will be free to act like Washington, D.C. did after Heller. Chicago under Mayor Daley is likely to do everything it can – including maneuvers that will be totally rejected as unconstitutional -- to keep its people repressed and deny, as fully as possible, the right to own, have and use guns for personal defense and other lawful purposes.

While we on the pro-rights side of the aisle had hoped for “reversed,” meaning the 7th Circuit decision saying we had no rights would be overturned, what we got was “reversed and remanded,” meaning the 7th Circuit will get another crack at the law, and do something to make it acceptable. If precedent is any gauge, they’ll do as little as they can, and be subject to another lawsuit and endless wrestling with our rights.

This extraordinarily event-filled day at the Court included Justice Stevens’ last day in public as a member, Justice Ginsburg’s husband’s death the night before, the beginning of Senate confirmation hearings for liberal High Court candidate Elena Kagan, and the much awaited McDonald decision, on this the last day of the current session.

Although some people had held out hope that Sotomayor, in her first gun case, would lean on her known respect for civil rights and find for the right to keep and bear, she turned out to be the leftist most expected, and voted for denial of rights in the 5-4 squeaker decision. She joined Breyer’s dissent, a masterpiece of odd reasoning and lack of appreciation for this fundamental right (based on a very quick overview). Kagan, cut from similar cloth, is likely to respond similarly if confirmed.

The McDonald v. Chicago decision is a 214-page document, with a six-page syllabus (the summary that precedes decisions), a 45-page decision of the Court written by Justice Alito, a 15-page concurrence by Scalia, a separate 56-page concurrence by Thomas, and two dissents — 57 pages from Stevens, and 31 pages from Breyer (joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor), who includes a four-page appendix. That’s a lot of reading (116 pages of “you have rights,” 92 pages of “you should not”), and by the time you see this, news organizations will have moved on to other subjects, but I will have just finished figuring out what the Court actually said.

About:
AzCDL believes that the emphasis of gun laws should be on criminal misuse and that law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms unaffected by unnecessary laws or regulations. AzCDL was founded by a group of local activists who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As a like-minded coalition of activists, the AzCDL founders were instrumental in the successful passage of the first major improvement to Arizona’s CCW (concealed carry) laws since they were instituted in 1994. Visit: www.azcdl.org

Women’s Outdoor News

Rolla, MO --(Ammoland.com)- Yeah! Hooray!

Another victory for gun rights took place when the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms.”

The vote was a 5-4 split – typical these days, especially when it comes to firearms cases.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation President Stephen L. Sanetti.

“All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

What Sanetti and others need to add, though, is “This trend could change quickly and flip-flop to 5-4 the other way.” In fact, adding anti-gun Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan keeps the progressive, anti-gun side of the bench in play for many years. Look at the executive branch and where it comes from and that is not a big surprise.

The big surprise will come when a conservative-leaning judge retires and is replaced by another Sotomayor or Kagan. It’ll be 5-4 the other way, and then, we’ll really have our work cut out for us.

~Barbara Baird

Twitter: http://twitter.com/babbsbaird
Facebook: http://facebook.com/babbsthewonBarbara Baird publishes The Women’s Outdoor News, that focuses on news, reviews and stories about women in the outdoors. She is also an NRA-certified pistol instructor. To take an NRA pistol class from Barbara Baird, see www.sheshoots2.com.

About:
The Women’s Outdoor News, aka The WON, delivers news, reviews and stories about women in the outdoors. Born out of a desire to serve the burgeoning outdoor market for women and to inspire as many women to go outside as possible, The WON pops into email inboxes, RSS feeds and Twitter Feeds with updates during the work week. Visit: www.Womensoutdoornews.com

IllinoisCarry.com

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision today overturning the decades old Chicago ban on handguns!

Following on the heels of the Heller vs DC decision two years ago which ruled DC’s ban unconstitutional, the landmark case of McDonald vs Chicago finally brings the Second Amendment decision is a huge win for the entire nation but especially for Chicago residents who have for decades been denied the right to possess a handgun in their home.

Increasing opposition to the ban has been fueled by residents of the city demanding the right to protect themselves from the horrendous number of violent crimes in their neighborhoods.

The ruling is also a tremendous win for Illinois citizens whose state constitution holds that the right to keep and bear arms is “subject to police power”. The Court ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to the states meaning “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a right protected even from local and state governments.  While this decision does not immediately change state law it does throw open the door to re-examination of current law and a whole new era of defining the words  “shall not be infringed”.

What does it all mean in our efforts to see a Right to Carry law passed in Illinois? It means a great deal in the IL General Assembly where some fence-sitters on the issue have been waiting to see “if” the Second Amendment truly does apply to the states.  It  will almost assuredly add votes to our side of the tally board and will make it increasingly more difficult to pass new laws restricting the right of a law abiding citizen’s to keep and bear arms.

Mayor Daley has vowed, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, to continue do everything he can to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the people of Chicago – but he can’t do it alone - he must have the votes of the aldermen on the city council.  If you are a resident of Chicago, contact your alderman TODAY and demand they support your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Demand they put an end to Mayor Daley’s fanatical attack on their right to protect themselves and their families.

This is a great day in the history of this nation, the state of Illinois, and for the people of Chicago!!

IllinoisCarry extends our heartfelt gratitude and respect to the courageous plaintiffs who stood before the courts on behalf of all Americans – Adam Orlov, David and Colleen Lawson, and lead plaintiff Otis McDonald.  Thank you to the Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, lead attorney Alan Gura, and Chicago attorney David Sigale for making it happen!A copy of the ruling can be downloaded at SCOTUSblog.com.

Come Join with the Huge Celebration of McDonald vs Chicago Second Amendment Freedom Rally

Join the grassroots movement that is sweeping the state of Illinois— A movement to restore the Second Amendment right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms!

Do not miss this historical event in celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in this landmark case to restore the Second Amendment throughout the nation! Sponsored by Illinois State Rifle Association and IllinoisCarry.com

About:
The IllinoisCarry forum was started in April 2004. The idea was that Illinois needed a central location to communicate ideas and information regarding 2nd Amendment issues in Illinois. There are many organizations in Illinois working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. Working with these groups IllinoisCarry has become the central location for information and Action Alerts. IllinoisCarry will not endorse political candidates. We simply provide information so voters can make informed decisions. Our goal is to join the other 48 states that allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. We encourage you to register on our forum and join the fight for your 2nd Amendment Rights in Illinois. Visit www.IllinoisCarry.com

Gunfacts.info

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Today America and civil rights won a huge victory … which will cause us much grief in the coming years. Celebrate tonight, then resume loading your intellectual ammo tomorrow.

As a marketing strategist by trade, my job is to anticipate what competitors will do. Now that banning certain types of guns (namely handguns) is no longer possible, the opposition will change their near-term goals and strategy.

Here are the issues I believe we must anticipate and prepare to defend against.

Registration and licensing: Pro-gun forces have resisted national registration and licensing because it would lead to confiscation. The gun control industry will now make the argument that since banning is no longer an option, registration is not a threat.

However, this only applies to handguns … for the moment. Banning guns remains an option for “assault weapons”, .50 caliber, machineguns and more. Thus registration remains a threat.

Additionally, this court decision is only as strong as future packed courts. Registered guns today become confiscated guns tomorrow if a future court reverses their opinion (and as summarized in my ancient copy of Constitutional law and Politics, Volume One, the court routinely reverses itself).

NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS COURT OVERTURNED

• Marshall Court (1801-1836) 3
• Taney Court (1836-1864) 4
• Chase Court (1864-1873) 4
• Waite Court (1874-1888) 13
• Fuller Court (1888-1910) 4
• White Court (1910-1921) 5
• Taft Court (1921-1930) 6
• Hughes Court (1930-1941) 21
• Stone Court (1941-1946) 15
• Vinson Court (1946-1953) 13
• Warren Court (1953-1969) 45
• Burger Court (1969-1986) 52
• Rehnquist Court (1986- 34

Total 219

Hamstringing: With banning off the table, the next best way to eliminate private ownership is to make it insanely difficult to obtain a firearm. Here in California moves are being made at the local level to make buying ammo difficult. In New York and D.C. the hurdles one must jump before obtaining a handgun are huge.

Expect the gun control industry to push laws at all levels to erect new roadblocks and test them in court. Each law that adds time and duties before acquiring a gun delays the exercise of your right, and as we chanted in the civil rights era, a right delayed is a right denied.

There is no “reasonable regulation” of a civil right.

Banning non-handguns: The gun control industry was effective in inventing the concept of “assault weapons” and thus banning many sporting rifles. Expect any firearm not specifically suited for self defense to become a banning target. We know that every firearm is protected by the Second Amendment. We know that every firearm has some self-defense or militia purpose. But the gun control industry knows how to confuse the public. Your dove gun may be reclassified as an “assault weapon” in the next round of legislation.

Ammo: In California some cities have tried to make ammo sales impossible. Guns without ammo are merely clubs, so the gun control industry will target ammo. Expect more bullet tax, registration/finger printing, and display restrictions if not an outright push to limit the amount of ammo you can buy (imagine a 50-round a month limit).

Friends, we can smile at today’s victory. But the gun control industry has been in business for over a hundred years. They have money, they have manpower, they have friends in the White House and they have an agenda. They are not defeated and they will not rest. Stay alert, stay prepared, and keep your power dry.

Virginia Shooting Sports Association

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Reverses and Remands McDonald Case back to 7th Circuit. Justice Alito announced the decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

On a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the 7th Circuit decision in the case and remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit. The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense.

Scotusblog reports that the majority seems divided.

…presumably on the precise standard. The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local government. Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.

The text of the Opinion is here.

In short, with the Court’s decision today, the Second Amendment applies to state and local regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. More on this later on the VSSA Blog.

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated.

“We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn --(AmmoLand.com)- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito that ruled the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states and local government.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said NSSF President Stephen L. Sanetti. “All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

The case before the Court, McDonald v. City of Chicago, was filed in 2008 a day after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — in which the high court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an “individual” right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision, however, did not reach the question of whether the Second Amendment also applied to the states.

Immediately after Heller, several Chicago residents including retired maintenance worker Otis McDonald filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s long-standing gun ban. The Chicago-based federal courts ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and local governments, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to decide the question it left unanswered in its Heller decision.

“Today’s decision marks the beginning of a new era of civil rights litigation as laws and regulations that infringe upon and violate the individual right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, are challenged,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “As the trade association for America’s firearms industry, our members make the products through which our Second Amendment rights are realized. Just as the First Amendment protects and shields newspapers and media, the Second Amendment secures constitutional protections for our industry.”

NSSF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of McDonald.

For more information and commentary on today’s ruling, please visit: WWW.NSSF.ORG.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,500 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

ICarry.org

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- A historic United States Supreme Court ruling just came down today!!!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does apply - also known as incorporation – to state and local governments.

The right to keep and bear arms is a FUNDAMENTAL right and Chicago and other cities cannot ban the ownership of handguns!!!

Here are some links for you!!

• The actual decision: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
• CNN: news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/
• Fox: liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/
• MSNBC: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
• Chicago Tribune: www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

If you live in Chicago, go out and buy yourself a handgun today because the ban has been lifted.  Daley will surely put new restrictions in place, but as of right now his ban has been lifted!!!

ICarry.org will keep you informed as more information becomes available, and we will be releasing our own analysis of the decision which applies the Heller decision to all 50 states.

Today we celebrate victory in the highest court.

Buckeye Firearms Foundation

Ohio - -(AmmoLand.com)- Buckeye Firearms Association is thrilled that the United States Supreme Court has ruled to strike down the ban on private ownership of firearms in Chicago.

Today, in a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. The decision is a result of a case brought by Otis McDonald (and others) against the city of Chicago. Leaving no room for doubt, the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies to Mayor Daley and Chicago.

“While there is much work to be done, this decision is the first critical step towards universal self-defense rights,” said Jim Irvine, President of Buckeye Firearms Foundation. Buckeye Firearms Foundation teamed up with the United States Concealed Carry Association to file an amicus brief in support of Mr. McDonald.

Irvine summarized the importance as follows: “The members of the United States Concealed Carry Association and the supporters of Buckeye Firearms Foundation travel regularly, and a robust Second Amendment applied against all cities and states is needed to insure that the right to self-defense travels with these people, the same as all their other rights. Finally, the Second Amendment is afforded equal dignity with the other constitutional rights we enjoy.”

The Court’s decision is being welcomed as a day of liberation for the law-abiding citizens of Chicago. After years of being held hostage to the murder and mayhem that has plagued the city without a means of self-defense, Chicagoans can finally exercise their right to bear arms and defend their home against the common thugs that used to act with impunity.

Chicago native and Buckeye Firearms Foundation BOD member Gerard Valentino was elated by the ruling and is already making plans to help his elderly mother in purchasing her first gun.

“Finally, my elderly mother and grandmother can live a little safer and with a little less fear because if someone breaks in they can have a gun for self-defense.”

For more information, visit this link, which will be updated throughout the day.

About:
Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots political action committee dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities. Visit: www.BuckeyeFirearms.org

Supreme Court Says YES to Second Amendment Incorporation

The 2nd Amendment has been incorporated to the states. 5-4 decision.

Here is the ruling:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago were an interesting show on March 2.

Most of the Justices made their positions on applying the Second Amendment to the states – and what mechanism to use to do it – fairly clear from the outset. Most observers agree that the Court will declare that states must recognize a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

A secondary issue in this case is not just whether the Second Amendment should apply to the states, but also how it should get there. The 14th Amendment was written and ratified specifically for the purpose of, among other things, clarifying who is a citizen of the US and to make the rights of US citizenship applicable and enforceable in the states.

That intent was thwarted however by a Supreme Court dominated by Justices with a strong state autonomy philosophy. In a ruling known as the Slaughterhouse cases, the Court interpreted, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” to be limited in scope to only such rights or privileges as were bestowed by the Constitution, not those which pre-existed and were merely reiterated in that document.

In the 140 years since that egregious decision no Court has been willing to reverse their esteemed predecessors and open the Pandora’s Box of “unenumerated rights”. mentioned in the Constitution. Instead they created a novel construct around another clause of the 14th which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” They have used this clause to somehow selectively “incorporate” virtually all of the Bill of Rights. Now they are poised to do the same with the Second Amendment.

This controversy leads to much speculation about how the Court will split on this question. Roberts and Scalia very clearly want to incorporate under Due Process.

Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas are likely to join them, but some of them could come out with a partial dissent favoring application of the right by means of the Privileges or Immunities clause rather than the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor seemed resigned to the fact that incorporation is inevitable, but would clearly prefer to selectively apply some limited version of the Second Amendment with lots of room for restrictions. Stevens might be the lone holdout dissenting on the grounds that applying the Second Amendment in cities like Chicago will cost lives – as if guns are only used for crime.

After losing in the 7th Circuit and being granted a review by the SCOTUS, Alan Gura, attorney for Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation, decided to use the opportunity to try and restore the Privileges or Immunities clause to its proper place in constitutional law. Some didn’t like that idea and so the NRA elbowed their way into the case to have their attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue for the more traditional Due Process incorporation.

Advertisement

During the oral arguments Gura and James Feldman, Special Counsel for Chicago were both rigorously questioned, almost badgered, by the Justices to the point that neither ever got more than a few words out before being interrupted again. The contrast between this and how the Justices handled Clement, was simply startling. Clement was able to breeze through his talking points with only a few, very cordial interruptions for polite, agreeable questions.

It was very clear that the Justices – at least the vocal ones – were downright hostile to the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse and most were equally hostile to the idea of not applying the Second to the states. It was also clear that these justices were predisposed to buy what Clement was selling. That had to be tough on Gura. This was his case from the beginning and he was very unhappy when NRA forced their way in and took one third of his argument time. Then to have their lawyer come out the heroes of the day while Gura’s arguments remained largely unuttered… It had to be frustrating, especially since Gura was planning all along to include Due Process in his arguments.

Since Clement came in, Gura had little choice but to concentrate virtually all of his time on the Privileges or Immunities argument.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how the right to arms is applied to the states so long as it is applied. Of course, winning this case is only the beginning. There will be multiple lawsuits over many years costing millions of dollars, and still the citizens of Chicago will probably have a difficult – if not impossible – time acquiring and maintaining legal handguns for self-defense in their homes – much less out in the wilds of the city streets.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

National Association for Gun Rights

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case.

Otis McDonald, the named plaintiff in the case, has sued the city of Chicago over their 28-year-old ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Alan Gura, the attorney from 2008’s famous Heller Case, argued the case for Mr. McDonald.

The National Association for Gun Rights joined the fight and filed a “friend of the court” amicus brief on behalf of Mr. McDonald. (You can read the full amicus brief by clicking here.)

Alan Gura, in response to questions from Justice Sotomayor, summed up the case well when he said, “…States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.” A full transcript of Tuesday’s oral arguments is available online, by clicking here.

Now that the oral arguments have been heard, legal analysts believe a decision could be handed down by mid-summer.

In theory, if Chicago’s handgun ban is indeed overturned, it would open the door to additional lawsuits against cities, municipalities and potentially even states that ban entire classes of weapons.

In practice, this ruling will likely have very little effect on the day-to-day lives of most gun owners. If the Heller Decision taught us anything, even a ruling in our favor doesn’t mean that gun control advocates won’t work tirelessly to restrict our rights.

After the Heller decision, D.C. passed draconian restrictions on firearms possession, and still bans the entire class of semi-auto handguns. I fully expect Chicago to follow suit, by passing a host of restrictions and regulations on the right of Chicago’s residents to defend themselves with handguns.

It does, however, mean that gun owners can make a role for themselves in the process. By being involved in state and local elections, gun owners have a direct impact on the politicians and the legislation they pass.

Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines. Gun owners must be involved in the political process to affect real, Constitutional change.

(For a refresher on the McDonald case, the Associated Press has a good write up on the plaintiffs in the case; David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov.)

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- This case was way more complicated than Heller.

Both attorneys faced hostility from the bench. Chicago’s lawyer got hit from all sides with little in the way of what you might call support. But the surprise was the way Alan Gura got blasted, even by the best friend gun-rights has up there, Justice Scalia.

Whoever or however we believed the Court might be ready to review the Privileges or Immunities clause of 14A was totally wrong. Every Justice had problems with the scope of such a decision, and poor Gura had to withstand withering assaults on his reasoning and approach.

I definitely need a transcript to go over what exactly happened, I thought audio was weak in chambers, complexity was way large, and in chatter afterwords found I wasn’t the only one.

How those aging Justices keep up — and they did, note for note, cite for cite — is a bloody miracle.

BOTTOM LINE
It looks like the Heller majority may hold together for this case, and the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states, under the familiar selective incorporation of Due Process. The same 2A that controls federal activity will apply to the states, no more, no less, though that issue of degree got a lot of attention. Not that the scope of 2A is all the well defined, but there was animus to the idea that incorporation would yield a “shadow” version for the states.

Gura may get the win, but not for any brilliant strategic planning — there was open hostility to the idea, central to his arguments, of 2A being a Privilege or Immunity of citizenship (I’ll discuss soon). The win, if there is one, may be more of a result of the bench being unprepared to treat 2A as some special bastard child the states do not have to follow, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights that has been incorporated so far.

And let me tell you, thank God for the NRA. They took a lot of heat for asking for and getting some of Gura’s oral argument time, using Paul Clement who had argued the government’s unsavory position for a low standard of scrutiny in Heller, getting their hat in the ring.

That turned out to be baloney, they were life savers. Considering the ferocity with which Gura and P&I were attacked, we were lucky to have at elegant, articulate, eloquent voice to apply 2A through Due Process. (Don’t get me wrong, Chicago fared just as poorly, but for different reasons.)

Clement’s arguments were so well made and so compelling, he got to speak at length without interruption, with the Justices in rapt attention. I asked him about that afterwords and he said yeah, it was really nice getting some “air time.”

There’s so much more to tell, the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process, and the – un-frickin-believable – lengthy consideration by the Justices of how much RKBA we’d enjoy if there was “no Second Amendment” (protected instead as a privilege or immunity), plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general (“guns kill!”), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns… it’ll have to be later (been on the go since 5:30 a.m), probably when I return to Phoenix, beginning of next week.

It was an honor and a thrill witnessing it all.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

Supreme Court

Down Range TV with Michael Blain

Howard, KS - -(AmmoLand.com)- Today and tomorrow, Down Range TV will be covering the McDonald v. City of Chicago Oral Arguments with commentaries from Michael Bane, Jim Shepherd, Dave Kopel and Dave Hardy.

Down Range Radio will also have the oral arguments as one of the topics in this week’s edition airing from midnight.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/?cat=354

About:
DOWN RANGE Television (DRTV) has quickly become the gold standard for Internet firearms sites. Founded in February 2007 by television personality and journalist Michael Bane and his partner Marshal Halloway founder of the first Internet firearms social community — CAS City — in 1995, DRTV offers original short-form video, original articles, moderated forums, gun giveaways, links to blogs and original weekly audio podcasts.

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- I’m back in my hotel, having endured the weather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in the a.m., the case that will decide the standing of our Second Amendment rights in the 50 states.

Well, people are lining up all right. Young people who can withstand it.

It’s bitter cold with a 20 MPH wind, but if you’ve decided to come here for the latest most seminal gun-rights case imaginable that’s not going to stop you.

At 5PM when I arrived (night before the oral argument) there were eight people awaiting seats for tomorrow’s McDonald v. Chicago 14th Amendment/Second Amendment case. By the time I left, with my feet too numb to feel, there were thirteen people trickled in, including a GW law-school student and her Mom who brought an air mattress and a comforter. When I cell-phoned some of the stalwarts later, before beginning this draft, I was told there were nearly 50 people there, including 15 or so high-school students who decided to rough it and see a landmark case at the Supreme Court.

Only 50 are guaranteed seats, so the window of opportunity is pratically closed. The Marshall’s office expected the crowd to develop in the a.m., looks like they’ll be SOOL.

Coulda been worse — for Heller, the line started TWO days ahead of time. This night-before stuff is child’s play. But it’s COOOOOLD.

As usual, the hale and hearty on line are more knowledgeable about this case than most of the public (and the media — Wash Post made their above-the-fold front-page story today a referendum on Justice Scalia, read like an unsavory biography (they don’t like the guy!), instead of the merits of the case; what facts Court reporter Robert Barnes did provide were out of whack, thin, misleading, pretty standard for that rag. Guess what they chose for an illustration — a picture of Chirs Broughton carrying his AR-15 at the Obama rally in Phoenix!! I kid you not. That makes sense, right? The Wash Compost’s idea of a gun image is a months old piece of discriminatory controversy, not something depicting basic human rights.

We had dynamic chats on the street about the premise of the case (the Post barely touched it), constitutional realities, the unknowns, the likely outcomes, the vote — Mike the blogger, incredibly knowledgable and with past cases at his fingertips with such detail and a tongue too fast even for me to follow, predicts a 9 -0 result — the Court will not overrule its Heller jurisprudence, and even hopelessly anti-gun-rights Ginsburg will forgo her hatred of 2A to reintstate 14A, or so he believes. Robert Cumberland flew in from California and is first in line — and he knows his stuff. This case affects him more than even Heller — that case set the groundwork, but this is the one that might actually force reinstatement of his abrogated rights, and he wants to be here to see it.

The carnival atmosphere is definitely lacking, there isn’t a single camera crew set up — at Heller there were dozens at this point, but no doubt there will be some tomorrow. Yet this case stands to have more net effect than Heller, it just doesn’t break ground in the same way. Dick Heller was out there after I left (phone tips from the folks I met, seven men and one woman), chatting up the crowd, enjoying his 15 years of fame, his nephew plans to be on line to see the proceedings, some guy named Robert is holding a place in line in the freezing cold for a party unnamed, at $20 an hour. Dan Schmutter, attorney for JPFO dropped by to see what’s up, this is definitely the hot ticket in town — all seats in Chambers are reserved, save for the precious few for the rabble (what we call the public).

Perhaps the most telling perspective came from a British theology professor visiting here, met in a bar on the frigid way home — he thinks the only rights you legitimately have are those the government gives you. You can have a gun if government “allows” it, with no ammo, locked in a locker, and this is freedom. If he was on the Court we’d be doomed. I’m not making this up.

Exhausted, need to pack, will observe tomorrow and provide my observations soon. Real soon.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

Illinois State Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court will hear arguments opposed to and in support of the Chicago handgun ban which has been in place since 1982.

This case, McDonald v Chicago was filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association immediately following the landmark 2008 case Heller v DC. Currently 38 states, 305 US Senator and Representatives and over 700 state legislators, to name just a few, have filed briefs in support of the defendants.

View all the available filings and briefs at ChicagoGunCase.com.

This case is expected to not only overturn the ban in Chicago but to finally provide incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states.

To think that this will end Mayor Daley’s attempts to maintain Chicago’s draconian gun laws, however, would be to ignore his recent statements made at the US Conference of Mayors:

“In the face of strong opposition from the NRA and other gun extremists, we will continue to advocate for the rights of cities to regulate guns and to coordinate efforts with other cities that share our position.”

As soon as possible, the ISRA website will have links to the oral arguments. Those links will go out over Twitter as well as an additional email message.

The ISRA will continue to advocate for YOUR rights as firearm owners and citizens (which Mayor Daley considers extremist) but it does not have the support of taxpayer dollars or the Joyce Foundation. If you are an ISRA member, we need your continued support. Please make a donation on-line, or over the phone at 815-635-3198.

About:
The ISRA is the state’s leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners Visit: www.isra.org

Second Amendment Foundation

Washington --(AmmoLand.com)- The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment”

This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”

This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively “puts on notice” anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders’ opinion – which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen – thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote:

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, “This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”

About:
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments will be heard this Tuesday, March 2, with a decision expected in June.

I’m hitting the road tomorrow (for two Texas conventions) and will be at the Court for eyewitness reports. The circus atmosphere does not appear to be in the air — yet this case could have more far-reaching consequences than the Heller case.

There’s no disagreement that when the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, they were designed to control the federal government only, not the states. Did the 14th Amendment change that?

The Colonists and the Founders were intensely afraid that a strong central government would eventually confiscate the rights cherished by early Americans — the very things that made America great and that have drawn people here like magnetism.

It was not a baseless fear, as we can see clearly from constant and growing federal usurpations of our rights and freedoms, with massive accumulations of power in Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment says it plainly: “CONGRESS shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The whole idea was to control the central government, not the states (which had their own protections and statements of rights).

The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery – the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves – especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress, led by the northern states, declared that all Americans had rights and that, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” (the key 52 words of the 14th Amendment’s 435 words, emphasis added). The historical record is emphatic in noting that the right to arms, especially for freedmen, was a prime mover in passing this amendment.

That language is clear, but here’s where it gets tricky, and the heart of the McDonald case. Passage of 14A didn’t automatically protect all citizens. What exactly are all the rights, privileges and immunities of the people? For reasons too complex to go into now, rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to control the states, but only one at a time, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There were two main ways to do this — the Privileges and Immunities clause (which protects only citizens), and the Due Process clause (which applies to “any person”). The Court has essentially abandoned the P&I clause, and relied mainly on Due Process.

A set of cases, combined into “The Slaughterhouse Cases” (look that up, it’s fascinating) pretty much gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, by saying the only rights you have as an American are extremely narrow. The P&I clause has essentially been a dead letter since that case in 1873 — and this is why McDonald v. Chicago is seen as so critical — it could breathe life into the heart of the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment is the subject matter, but the 14th Amendment is what’s at stake. OK, OK, they’re both at stake.

With a key chunk of the 14th essentially dead, the High Court has relied on Due Process to apply (legal eagles say “incorporate”) the Bill-of-Rights rights against the states. That’s why states can’t search and seize your property without a warrant (well, in theory at least — the states have usurped enormous powers too). The Due Process clause is why free speech cannot be denied by the states (again, only in theory — the abuses here are so great it’s the subject of my next book: Bomb Jokes At Airports — And 186 Other Things You’d Better Not Say).

So now we’re at the case in hand. Chicago has pretty much outlawed or severely infringed firearms rights for anyone in the city. All the city’s powers are basically derived from the state of Illinois. Does Chicago have legitimate power to outlaw your rights? It says yes.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States. (FWIW, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey filed briefs supporting Chicago, a total of three arguing against RKBA rights.)

I say, along with a huge chunk of this great country, that the states should be as totally bound to protect and safeguard the rights you have as an American citizen as all government should be. (38 briefs were filed in defense of our rights, including one by 251 congressmen and 58 senators). I go a bit further and say the bigots who have been denying and repressing your rights all this time belong in prison, but we’re not likely to go that far. This time.

People who know about these things believe it is most likely that, if the High Court decides the states are obligated to honor the Second Amendment (and by implication, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights) they will apply the Due Process clause to justify their reasoning. That’s how it’s always been done, that’s the most safe and precedent-ready route, and that’s the best argument to press. Or is it?

Hopes are huge and the Court has subtly signaled that it is ready to finally breathe life into the P&I clause, and that has become the dominant argument for the petitioners (McDonald, et al.) and their attorneys, led by Alan Gura. The Court has all it needs to go the Due Process route, why not give it the encouragement it needs, seems to want, to rebirth P&I.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. McDonald v. Chicago is seen as the best opportunity in more than a century to fix the harm done by Slaughterhouse. There is virtually unanimous consensus that Slaughterhouse was bad law, decided for bad reasons, and that it needs to be overturned. It has killed off a crucial part of a crucial constitutional amendment, and the times, and the Court, and the legal system are ready to set it right. It means upsetting a huge apple cart, but it’s time.

Even though the subject matter of McDonald is gun rights, and a positive decision will have enormous positive impact on everyone’s right to arms, many on the political left are supporting this case. Talk about strange bedfellows. They want that 14th Amendment restored because they see it as a linchpin for all sorts of possible “civil rights” they envision in the future. Think of every wacky demand the left makes, and then imagine these are “found,” one by one, to be civil rights the federal government can force the states to honor and protect.

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run. Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know. And the idea of losing the case, leaving states free to trample our precious right to arms, is just unthinkable. Giving up the best chance we’ve had in our history to right the wrongs of Slaughterhouse is not an easy option to consider. But the NRA, with laser aim on reinstating the rights of Chicagoans, has stepped into the fray, and asked for and received part of the tiny argument time (30 minutes) Alan Gura has before the Court.

The NRA has retained Paul Clement, the former solicitor general whose experience before the Court is unrivaled (and who wrote the pro-rights brief signed by 58% of the U.S. Congress for this case). The NRA wants to make sure the Due Process arguments are firmly made, since Mr. Gura has chosen the somewhat riskier focus on the Privileges and Immunities clause (though both camps make arguments for both approaches). The NRA’s request for time, unusual but not unheard of, was definitely a fly in the ointment, but an ointment they felt needed a stir and examination.

To be sure, many of the friend-of-the-court amicus briefs filed in this case brought up and documented well the value, need and reasons to re-establish the P&I clause — but it would break very new ground. So the NRA’s position is not out in left field — they are recognizing and making the more traditional case based Due Process. It’s a double-barreled approach for success. which is a good thing. Probably. You never know when the Supreme Court gets its hands on an issue.

The most dangerous game may be the side note about Chicago’s gun-registration scheme. If you can have a gun there at all it must be re-registered every year, most guns simply cannot be registered, and if you miss your renewal date (and fee for every gun you own) the gun(s) becomes permanently unregisterable and contraband. Is that OK? The Court’s handling of this policy if they decide to touch it (and it seems they may have to based on the facts of the case), is fraught with danger for gun rights.

So there you have it.

In the amicus brief my company Bloomfield Press filed with lead attorney Chuck Michel and dozens of district attorneys, gun rights groups from Texas, Virginia and Arizona, sheriff Richard Mack who was behind the original Brady law case (which he won) and others, we mainly left the 14A arguments for others. Instead, we addressed some essential points that got far less attention.

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

We did this with five separate arguments, two of which were a direct result of the work I did with attorneys Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook on my 10th book, Supreme Court Gun Cases. We found 92 gun-related cases the Court had heard (starting in 1820) up to that time (2003) and they were uniformly consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms. (By my count, the Court has actually heard 103 gun-related cases at this point. McDonald will be the 104th).

In 14 of these prior cases the Court repeatedly stated every basic tenet of self defense in effect today. The Heller case forced the modern-day judiciary to finally unambiguously recognize and accept self defense as a core reason and justification for the right to arms in the first place. The public already understood this well. We carefully documented which classic cases supported which aspects of self defense (innocence, reasonable belief, grounds for belief, actions not words, necessity, equal force, immediacy ends, retreat and chase, plus rightfully armed, mutual combat, wounding and withdrawal) to show how solidly grounded these rights and issues are in the High Court’s existing jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Gun Cases

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! has the complete case that saved the Second Amendment, with 400 key quotes highlighted and plain English analysis, plus summaries of the first 96 gun cases the High Court has decided.

http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

My next post is planned for the evening before the oral argument (I’m breaking my infrequent-posts rule, but you understand). I’ll be down at the courthouse to see the theatrics, though I’m not expecting much. The wind went out of those sails with the Heller case (and camping out in early March is a much tougher gig than in D.C. in October). Still, with both the left and the right focused on this seminal 14A hearing, well, I’ll let you know what I find. Fortunately, I’ll spend the night in my hotel.

P.S. In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.

The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com

The amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae brief

Background on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

My initial summary and press release on the issues:

http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm

Every amicus brief filed:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn –-(AmmoLand.com)- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry - hailed today’s ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“This decision by the Washington State Supreme Court is a welcomed development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

“America’s firearms industry remains optimistic that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming McDonald v. City of Chicago case that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual liberty that all states and local governments must respect.”

The NSSF filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago, set to be heard by the High Court next month.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism.

The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.

NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!

Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.

“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”

Oh yeah?

Now take a look at this one:

“The Second Amendment talks about “the right to bear arms”, not just “a right to bear arms”. And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”

Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!

And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:

“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just… I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”

Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.

And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment.”

How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?

Some icing on the cake:

“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood — and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”

Oh boy…

Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.

This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: “NRA Letter”

This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: this handbill and see also: the film “No Guns for Negroes“.

In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: “Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?” This present turn of events should certainly not deter our fears. JPFO is not alone in our concern with this NRA/Clement issue. See: this Cato @ Liberty article.

Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic?

How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”

Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy?

And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?

About:
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. Visit www.JPFO.org Copyright JPFO 2010

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- For several months, we have been reporting on the landmark McDonald v. City of Chicago court case. The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment, and makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case on Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

There are two provisions in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution through which the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states. One is the Due Process Clause, which the Court has used to incorporate a majority of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and the other is the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has asked the parties in McDonald v. Chicago to address both issues. Counsel for the petitioner, Otis McDonald, focused overwhelmingly in his brief on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. NRA, as a party to the case, focused its brief largely on the Due Process Clause (although the NRA brief also discusses the Privileges or Immunities Clause).

NRA believes that the Court should reach the same conclusion -that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states – under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA has asked for the opportunity to participate in the oral argument to ensure that all arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states are fully considered. Gun owners will have the best chance of ultimate victory on this critical issue if all options are fully explained to the Court. As always, NRA’s goal in McDonald is to see that our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live.

Rest assured we will continue to update you on the case as it progresses.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case on Tuesday, March 2, 2010.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe our brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment (to see a copy of NRA’s brief, please click here).

Support for incorporation of the Second Amendment is very strong, and numerous additional briefs have recently been filed and signed by both federal and state officials.

Briefs were filed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, a large bipartisan group of state legislators and other elected officials from all 50 states, and more than three-fourths of state attorneys general. All are supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The NRA is gratified that so many members of Congress and such a large number of state legislators and state attorneys general have joined this historic effort in support of our Second Amendment freedoms. Along with gun owners everywhere, we are grateful for their participation in ensuring that the Second Amendment applies across the nation—not just in federal enclaves—and look forward to the case moving forward.

Rest assured we will continue to update you on the case as it progresses.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Arizona Citizens Defense League

Glendale, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)- The Arizona Citizens Defense League has joined with other pro-rights individuals, groups and several district attorneys in the filing of an “amicus (friend of the court) brief” with the United State Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the most critical Second Amendment case since the Heller decision upheld our individual right to keep and bear arms.

In April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable to all state and local governments. However in McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and that state and local government laws regarding firearms are not affected by the Second Amendment.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case. We are asking the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. You can find a copy of the amicus brief at: http://tinyurl.com/McdonaldAmicus .

Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, is following the McDonald case closely and has posted a plain English summary of the issues at stake at his website: www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm.

Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting our amicus brief, which was submitted by California attorney Chuck Michel (http://www.michelandassociates.com/).

You can also read more about the McDonald case at the Second Amendment Foundation’s website: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/ .

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today! http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom

About:
AzCDL believes that the emphasis of gun laws should be on criminal misuse and that law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms unaffected by unnecessary laws or regulations. AzCDL was founded by a group of local activists who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As a like-minded coalition of activists, the AzCDL founders were instrumental in the successful passage of the first major improvement to Arizona’s CCW (concealed carry) laws since they were instituted in 1994. Visit: www.azcdl.org

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Caucus Vice-Chair Sen. Jon Tester, along with CSC House Vice-Chair Rep. Mike Ross, and Rep. Mark Souder, joined together with 58 Senators and 251 House members in filing a bipartisan, bicameral amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to hold the Second Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus really stepped up to the plate in further protecting our Second Amendment rights by working across party lines in filing this landmark brief,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane.

The McDonald v. City of Chicago case will decide whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right that applies to states in the same way the Supreme Court found that it applied to the Federal government in last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

“Working together, we’re making our gun rights in this country stronger,” said Sen. Tester. “This isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about the rights all law-abiding Americans have under our Constitution, and those rights are always worth fighting for.”

CSC Senate Co-Chairs, Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Mike Crapo, and CSC House Co-Chairs Rep. Dan Boren and Rep. Paul Ryan led an effort to urge fellow members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to sign on to the brief.

“As an avid hunter, I believe the government has a limited role in regulating the ownership of guns,” said Nelson.

Last year, members of the Caucus joined in the filing a similar amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in support of the Court upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental, individual right.

“Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves against criminals,” said Rep. Ross. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the right of D.C. residents to own and bear arms and I am optimistic these same rights will be extended to the law abiding citizens of Chicago and across the United States in McDonald v. the City of Chicago.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in February 2010.

About:
We can have the best wildlife habitat imaginable and a record number of people who buy fishing and hunting licenses, but it won’t matter if misguided laws and regulations are made at the federal and state levels that negatively impact our outdoor traditions. Keeping sportsmen’s issues front and center is what the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation does. Day in and day out, our sole focus is on providing a voice for sportsmen in the political arena. Serving as the first line of defense in protecting America’s outdoor traditions as well as promoting the sportsmen’s agenda through the collective muscle of sportsmen’s caucuses. Visit: www.sportsmenslink.org

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- As we reported last week, on November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Texas State Rifle Association

Texas --(AmmoLand.com)- Governor Rick Perry and Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst head a list of nearly 900 State Legislators initiating a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court again seeking to secure Constitutional rights for all citizens, the right to keep and bear arms.

The list includes two governors, Rick Perry of Texas and Charlie Crist of Florida. In Texas the list of Texas Senators and Texas House Members reflects a bi-partisan consensus of support.

The thrust of the friends of the court brief, signed by 890 state legislators representing all 50 states, is to allow States’ Legislatures to clear up uncertain legal boundaries surrounding gun rights ownership and allow State Legislators to pass effective and Constitutionally compliant legislation in their respective state.

This brief adds depth to other briefs including one initiated in Texas by Attorney General Greg Abbott. This document bears the signatures of 75 percent of America’s state attorneys general in further support of a favorable outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Otis T. McDonald v the City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park, Ill.

Other supporting briefs include one joined by the Texas State Rifle Association and other NRA state affiliate associations from across the country and a brief initiated and signed by Texas U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison with 56 additional members of the U.S. Senate and 249 additional members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

For more information on this and other pro-Second Amendment Issues go to www.tsra.com

Please up-grade or renew your TSRA membership TODAY. As with voting, only numbers count!

About:
The Mission of the Texas State Rifle Association is to protect and defend the inalienable rights of the individual Texan to acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership and enjoy the right to lawful use of firearms for self preservation, for the defense of family and property and the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberties of the people. Visit: www.TSRA.com

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Should individual states be required to honor your guarantees under the Bill of Rights?

Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to say yes, in an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief just filed.

The goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They are not currently obligated to do so. This principle is up for review in McDonald v. Chicago, expected to be argued at the High Court in February, 2010, and decided by June. See the filing here — http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 only to control Congress (e.g., “Congress shall make no law…”), and the High Court has only applied the Bill to the states in bits and pieces. Studies have shown most people are unaware of this.

The 14th Amendment in 1868 said states cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, or deprive or deny the rights of the people, but it provided few details — and the High Court has been evaluating that since then.

Working piecemeal, the Court has declared states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial and more. This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest-profile case of its kind — the right to arms in the Second Amendment.

Chicago has flatly banned this right, leaving its citizens defenseless, and insists it has the power to do so. The city’s ban does little to disarm hardened criminals who simply roam free, carrying guns illegally at will.

“The core issue is whether a state has legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people,” says Alan Korwin, author of eight books on gun law and the publisher at Bloomfield Press, the nation’s largest producer and distributor of gun-law books. “This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right,” he says.

The avowedly anti-gun-rights Washington Post observed that,

“Lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.”

That sentiment was echoed in the similarly anti-rights LA Times, which stated editorially,

“It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment,” but continued, “Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others… this is no time for the Court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”

Bloomfield Press joins 34 California DAs, eight Nevada DAs, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack (the hero of the successful Brady-bill case that set 10th Amendment limits on federal invasion of states’ rights), several law-enforcement associations, and citizens’ rights groups in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia in the amicus filing.

Mr. Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.

The main points argued include:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a deeply rooted “fundamental right” and thus properly applied to the states;
2. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment necessarily incorporates the Second Amendment to apply against the states;
3. The right to armed self defense is a fundamental right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court dating back to the 19th century;
4. The right to self defense, in addition to the right to arms, has been well established as fundamental for centuries in state constitutions, and in federal law and state law;
5. Firearms are and have always been recognized as essential to exercise the right to self defense, with each one reliant upon the other; and
6. Federalism (states rights) presents no obstacle to incorporating a fundamental right of the people.

The entire brief may be downloaded here
(it will be on the Supreme Court website shortly).

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

——–

The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amici include the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), The Texas Concealed Handgun Association (TCHA), and The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), all easily googled. The complete list of amici with descriptions of their interests are in the brief.

National Rifle Association

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun possession, as well as the capital city’s ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

The follow-up cases were filed by NRA and other organizations against Chicago and several of its suburbs. Each of these suits was aimed at the same goal: establishing that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe our brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment

The McDonald case will be argued in February 2010. NRA members should be proud of our efforts to bring this issue to the court’s attention through the many lawsuits we brought to overturn local bans on gun ownership and self-defense immediately after Heller. We are hopeful that McDonald v. Chicago will achieve another major victory for gun owners’ rights.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

IllinoisCarry.com

Illinois --(AmmoLand.com)-Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal of the case of the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit concerning Chicago’s ban on handguns . The lawsuit was filed over a year ago on June 26, 2008 on the heels of a favorable ruling by SCOTUS in the Washington, DC vs Heller case . In that case the Court ruled the Washington, DC handgun ban unconstitutional.

The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed the lawsuit on behalf of four Chicago residents, Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, and Colleen and David Lawson. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case, now known as McDonald vs Chicago, is being viewed by many Second Amendment supporters as a possible historic landmark in the battle for the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the only amendment listed in the Bill of Rights that the Court has not applied to the states or what is known as “incorporated” to the states. States and local governments have interpreted that lack of incorporation to mean they can issue any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms they deem appropriate – up to and including outright bans on whole classes of firearms such as handguns.

McDonald vs Chicago offers the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to not only strike down the Chicago handgun ban but also makes it possible for the Court to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states. The Heller case didn’t call for a ruling on the issue of incorporation because that case involved a federal entity, Washington, DC, and did not involve a state or local government.

If incorporation takes place, state and local governments will be called to recognize the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens will then begin to have a reasonable expectation of exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Congratulations to the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the plaintiffs in bringing this case before the U.S. Supreme Court. You can follow the case at ChicagoGunCase.com.

About:
The IllinoisCarry forum was started in April 2004. The idea was that Illinois needed a central location to communicate ideas and information regarding 2nd Amendment issues in Illinois. There are many organizations in Illinois working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. Working with these groups IllinoisCarry has become the central location for information and Action Alerts. IllinoisCarry will not endorse political candidates. We simply provide information so voters can make informed decisions. Our goal is to join the other 48 states that allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. We encourage you to register on our forum and join the fight for your 2nd Amendment Rights in Illinois.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --(AmmoLand.com)-During this summer’s Firearms Legal Seminar at the Annual NRA Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, a central question was whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the Second Amendment incorporation issue.

Today that question has been answered in the affirmative.

Why is this case important?
Courts have always held that the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution applies only to the Federal Government. (E.g., “CONGRESS shall make no law…”) The fundamental freedoms only protect citizens from their states when the Supreme Court incorporates those rights, or rules that the Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process of Law or Privileges and Immunities (which specifically refer to the states), encompass those rights.

To date, each of the rights contained in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution have been incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment except for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the right to be indicted by a grand jury in felony cases, an important part of the Fifth Amendment.

Last year, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller recognized that the Second Amendment is a right held by individual citizens, not some amorphous group of “the People.” Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hear an appeal in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago to determine whether that federal right also offers protection from states and municipalities.

The Plaintiff in McDonald is a Chicago resident who asked the courts to overturn the city’s substantial regime of gun control. He lost at trial in the United States District Court, and also lost on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

This will be the first time Justice Sandra Sotomayor will rule on a firearms issue as a member of the nation’s highest court.

About:
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, founded in 1999, is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, our mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio. Visit: Ohioccw.org

National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Va. — -(AmmoLand.com)-The National Rifle Association applauds the Supreme Court’s decision, announced today, to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities across the United States.

The decision to hear the case, which will be argued later this year or early next year, gives Second Amendment advocates across America hope that this fundamental freedom will not be infringed by unreasonable state and local laws.

“The Second Amendment applies to every citizen, not just to those living in federal enclaves like Washington D.C. In the historic Heller decision, 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. The government should respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens throughout our country, regardless of where they live, and NRA is determined to make sure that happens,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

In the June ruling that the Supreme Court will now review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. That opinion left in place the current ban on the possession of handguns in Chicago.

However, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly claimed it was bound by precedent from 19th century Supreme Court decisions in failing to incorporate the Second Amendment. Many legal 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.

To the contrary, a proper incorporation analysis supports application of the Second Amendment to the States.

“It is an injustice that the residents of Chicago continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “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.”