McDonald v. Chicago

I am sorely tempted to send Chicago's Mayor Daley a sympathy card. I'm sure he's crying about the latest Supreme Court decision, which bluntly asserts that Chicago's anti-gun laws violate the Second Amendment, and the rights of all Chicagoans. (I hope he cries enough to cause severe dehydration.)

Wikipedia reports that "McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."

Let me repeat what I said after the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller decision in 2008. I have a right to life. I don't need the Supreme Court to rule in agreement with me. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me that, either.

However, for those Americans that seek the approval of authority before they form an opinion, this case is truly exceptional. For those people unwilling to defend themselves on their own authority, you have now been given permission by the Supreme Court to act on your biological urge for self-preservation. (You couldn't have resisted your hard-wired response, but now, at least, you don't have to feel guilty about it.) I am thrilled to learn that Americans purchased 14 million guns in 2009, along with 14 BILLION rounds of ammunition! I'm willing to bet this isn't because of a sudden, widespread interest in quail hunting. Hopefully, several million of these new gun owners will be brave enough to CARRY their new guns once they hear about the recent Supreme Court decision. It is a simple and blatant fact that when gun sales rise, crime drops.

I won't bother searching for statistics to support this argument, in much the same way I do not feel the need to prove that things fall when you drop them. One of my favorite challenges happens whenever someone claims that a criminal is more likely to take my gun away and use it on me, than I might be to use my gun in self-defense. (Are you freakin' kidding me?!) I love to "holster" my cell phone as if it's a pistol, and ask them to demonstrate their theory by taking my "gun" away from me. Nonebody has ever made a move in my direction in an attempt to prove this asinine statement. (Did I mention that I'm never really holding a gun?)

Much of the McDonald v. Chicago involves an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally, the limitations outlined in the Bill of Rights were thought to apply only the the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment is thought to extend those limitations to the state governments as well. Frankly, I think this argument is absurd and unnecessary. If I tell Peter that I will retaliate if he steals from me, does this imply that Paul is welcome to take my things simply because he wasn't mentioned in the warning? Of course not. It should be obvious that I will retaliate against anyone who attempts to steal from me, whether I have warned them previously or not.

Which brings up an interesting question. If it is presumed that the state governments COULD violate my right to keep and bear arms prior to the Fourteenth Amendment expanding the Second Amendment's scope - does that mean each of the 3300+ counties in the United States will require statutes to be enacted so the Second Amendment applies to them as well? Will statutes be required to name each city in the county before the restriction applies? Perhaps each statute should be amended each month to specifically name every Sheriff's Deputy and police officer - just in case they are clever enough to point out that the Supreme Court never mentioned them by name.

When is everybody going to realize that the only one who can successfully defend your right to carry a gun for self-defense is YOU?

McDonald v. Chicago


For another take on this case see http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/06/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago... which points out some things revealed in the opinion.

Am I stupid? Or is it everone else???


Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution for the USA states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pusuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution? or did one of these later bogus ammendments repeal article VI? Maybe I am just a stupid marroon that can't be trusted to think about these things...

[Badnarik says: Perhaps it will make more sense if you read it as
"This Constitution AS AMENDED... shall be the supreme law..."
Of course the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.]

The second ammendment stands because it is the supreme Law of the Land, it stands because I exercise it, Every day of my life.

[Badnarik says: This is true for ALL of the Constitution.]




Buy the Book or DVD Today!




Find a class in your city

JAW-DROPPING 8 hour immersion
into a subject you THOUGHT you knew.

Recent Articles

Witty, funny, engaging, educational, articles by Michael Badnarik.

.