Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?

Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?
By Kirby Ferris
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Copyright JPFO 2010

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC –-(AmmoLand.com)- Coming up in our lives is perhaps the most critical Supreme Court decision in a century.

Sometime towards summer of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to decide on the case McDonald vs. The City of Chicago.

Oral arguments begin March 2nd. The implications are immense.

A favorable ruling for McDonald would overthrow the Chicago ban on handgun ownership and would open the floodgates for an immense wave of (likely successful) pro-gun lawsuits against American cities, counties, and States.

Second Amendment advocates felt that a win in the Heller decision was vitally important for gun owners (JPFO filed a “friend of the court” brief in Heller). Well, McDonald is Heller on steroids.

McDonald is Heller on steroids.
A victory for gun owners could profoundly change the face of our nation. State by State by State, gun prohibitionists could finally be rousted out and smashed into impotence. Remember that Heller only dealt with guns in the District of Columbia. Let us remind ourselves: D.C. is not a State.

JPFO has also filed a “friend of the court” brief on McDonald.  The ramifications of this ruling could either impact the Second Amendment for the better … or for the absolute worst.

What McDonald does is attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to bring the Second Amendment under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment. This is called “incorporation” in legalese.

Here is the immediately relevant portion of 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.

SCOTUS has opined, over decades of decisions, that, because of the 14th Amendment, the States must obey the First Amendment. The high court has also found the same for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other specific sections of the Bill of Rights.

… the States must obey the First Amendment.
However, until the Heller case, SCOTUS, since 1939, had literally kept 2A off the table, an untouchable “States Rights” issue. But Heller forced 2A right up to the front burner. The Supreme Court rather obviously had to pay attention to Heller, as D.C. is its immediate jurisdiction. So many pro-gun strategists see Heller as the “wedge” needed to open to door to McDonald.

But, as with all things legal, there are some unsettling ramifications. McDonald would undeniably give added power to the Federal government. No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership. One need look no further than the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the BATFE, with its draconian registration and “tracing” schemes, to understand this reality.

No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership.
But in McDonald, it would seem, this added federal power, because it would add support to the individual right to gun ownership, would most likely be a positive thing. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in all the States have actually been nurtured (or at least certainly not hindered) by “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment.

It seems a relatively safe bet that States with existing pro-gun stances would not be restricted by a positive McDonald decision. Or so we assume.

What is obvious is that the gun prohibitionists do not like what they see coming down the pike with McDonald. Are they hoping for a miracle?

Are they hoping for a miracle?
What could happen between now and the end of March to toss McDonald into disarray? Several events come to mind:

1. What if a horrific “lone gunman” massacre takes place?

Remember, both Australia and New Zealand reacted hysterically against gun ownership under such circumstances. And don’t ever forget that Patrick Purdy’s schoolyard slaughter in Stockton, CA was the emotional fuel that launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”.

Could such another appalling event result in the inclusion of “weasel clauses” in the language of a McDonald verdict, or even a complete victory for gun prohibitionists?

Look to the pitifully anti-gun Anti Defamation League for an indication of how such a horrific (yet convenient) tragedy might be scripted.

The ADL is shrill in its concern about “white supremacists”. Therefore look for a “lone gunman” to be white. For the “shock and awe” psychological effect to be truly wrenching, the unarmed victims will have to be either blacks … or Jews. The ADL and its ilk desperately need to be able to wring their hands in perversely satisfied anguish and scream out: “We told you so! We told you so!” or…

2. What if one of the Justices who voted in favor of Heller (and can therefore be assumed to vote favorably in McDonald) was to die between now and March?

Heller was a five to four win. What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided? What if Barack Obama is then able to bring forth a rabidly anti-gun candidate as a replacement before McDonald is decided? Are there enough votes in the Senate to deny such an appointment? Don’t bet on it.

What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided?

3. What if a prominent politician, bureaucrat, spokesperson, or worshipped celebrity is reportedly killed by a “lone nut case”?

4. What if another terrorist attack occurs? Mass casualties would create the perfect excuse for martial law, and an end run around the Constitution, making any decisions by the Supreme Court irrelevant.

Anybody familiar with the American history of clandestine government and elite class (establishment) activities since WWII should not be shocked if any of the above mentioned scenarios occur.

Yes, friends of freedom, crucial times are upon us. Pay very close attention, and redouble your effort to save the Second Amendment. JPFO has plenty of “intellectual ammunition” on our site waiting for you to use, such as its ground breaking award winning films “2A Today for The USA” andNo Guns for Negroes.

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

6
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
LuisRalph2loPaladinDDS -- NRA Life MembHerbM Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Luis
Guest
Luis

Here's how I see the SCOTUS decision in McDonald v. Chicago:

If Sotomayor recuses herself, due to her prior Second Circuit rulings, I think SCOTUS will go 5-3 in favor of incorporating the Second Amendment.

If she doesn't, then I foresee a 5-4 vote for incorporation.

Of course, having already decided that the 2A is an individual right, SCOTUS may actually go 6-2 or even 7-2 in favor of incorporation. It may be that one or more of the liberal justices will actually strike down the Slaughterhouse rulings.

We shall see what we shall see.

Ralph2lo
Guest
Ralph2lo

In Heller, the court ruled that the federal government could not ban guns "the federal government cannot ban an entire class of firearms" Scalia stated in the majority opinion. At worst, a ruling in favor of Chicago would only allow a 'state' -to ban firearms, one could just move to any gun friendly state> Texas, Florida,Oklahoma,Tennesse,Kentucky,Georgia,South Carolina,Alaska,Vermont, etc. etc. But I dont expect the Supremes to confer special rights to citizens of a federal enclave, and not to those in a state, where there is explicit constitutional protection for.

Paladin
Guest
Paladin

The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than LEGAL QUACKERY! The 14th Amendment is and never was needed to "incorporate" the BOR against the individual states. The original text of the US Constitution contained language "incorporating" it entirely against the states. Simply read Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 and Section VI. You know phrases like, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." And, "This Constitution,…, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution… Read more »

DDS -- NRA Life Memb
Guest
DDS -- NRA Life Memb

It's extremely important to remember that, as SCOTUS ruled in US v Cruikshank, the RKBA is one of those inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. It pre-existed the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federal Government that was established by those documents. The various constitutional clauses at the federal and state levels merely forbid the various governments from "infringing" on that right. Referring again to the Declaration of Indepencence, governments are instituted among men to protect those inalienable rights. Those which do not then become "unjust" governments, like that of George III, and the people… Read more »

HerbM
Guest
HerbM

A loss in McDonald would be a disappointment but would lose nothing — that we now have. Currently, our RKBA is protected (mostly) by state Constitutions which set the outer limits for what gun controls can be implemented. A win in McDonald however will require ALL states to set such limits, and serve as a 'ratchet' to prevent (easy) deterioration of our rights. This MUST be done now (as Heller NEEDED to be done then) so that it can be complete before one of you concerns becomes a far stronger likelyhood: Sooner or later, the constructionists on the Court will… Read more »

Tom2
Guest
Tom2

I also read somewhere that 58 U.S. Senators and 251 Representatives have signed a statement of support, the largest Congressional turnout ever, surpassing even the support for Heller.