Colt 45
11-13-2009, 06:48 PM
Violence Policy Center worries that Supreme Court will heed the Constitution (http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Violence-Policy-Center-worries-that-Supreme-Court-will-heed-the-Constitution#comments)
Much has been written (including some by myself and other Gun Rights Examiners--see links beneath the photo) about the impending McDonald v. City of Chicago case to be heard by the Supreme Court early next year. In this case, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association are challenging Chicago's handgun ban (the NRA also eventually became involved).
Probably the biggest issue that will be decided here is whether or not the Second Amendment is to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus apply to state and local governments, as well as to the feds. If SCOTUS does decide in favor of incorporation (which seems to be the expected outcome), then Chicago's outright ban of handguns will be history--although Heller illustrates to us that just about every conceivable lesser restriction will still be on the table.
America Magazine recently (so recently, in fact, that the article is dated for next week) featured an editorial about the case, and the editors leave little room for doubt about where they stand.
To widen the impact of the [Heller] ruling to local and state regions, gun rights proponents want to obtain a similar ruling in the Chicago case and thus eviscerate the stricter gun laws there and elsewhere in the country. Such a ruling would be a troubling development indeed, particularly for Chicago, a city that has an especially high rate of gun violence.
I certainly won't deny that Chicago has a high rate of violence (to the point that the city finds itself in danger of exsanguination), but that seems a rather odd endorsement of Chicago's "gun-free" status quo.
What I find particularly interesting about the editorial, though, is what is said by Violence Policy Center (VPC) legislative director Kristen Rand.
For Ms. Rand and other gun control advocates, one of the worst aspects of a victory by those who mounted McDonald v. Chicago would be that it would remove what she called “the most effective measures to prevent handgun violence.”
Um . . . "most effective"? The murder capital of the U.S. has the "most effective measures to prevent handgun violence"?
But now Ms. Rand brings us to the point of today's article.
She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law “and not in terms of the deadly effect on citizens of gun violence.” The court should know better than most that, as former U.S. Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
In other words, Ms. Rand is upset about the possibility of the Supreme Court using the Constitution--rather than a radical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament--as its guide. Kinda like the folks discussed here, she would seem to have issues with these guys.
From this, I draw two conclusions. First, the VPC is effectively acknowledging that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. Second, the VPC believes its agenda should trump the Constitution.
I'll allow that honorable people can disagree about the meaning of the Constitution, but people who know their agenda is unconstitutional--and pursue it anyway--sound an awful lot like domestic enemies, to me.
Much has been written (including some by myself and other Gun Rights Examiners--see links beneath the photo) about the impending McDonald v. City of Chicago case to be heard by the Supreme Court early next year. In this case, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association are challenging Chicago's handgun ban (the NRA also eventually became involved).
Probably the biggest issue that will be decided here is whether or not the Second Amendment is to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus apply to state and local governments, as well as to the feds. If SCOTUS does decide in favor of incorporation (which seems to be the expected outcome), then Chicago's outright ban of handguns will be history--although Heller illustrates to us that just about every conceivable lesser restriction will still be on the table.
America Magazine recently (so recently, in fact, that the article is dated for next week) featured an editorial about the case, and the editors leave little room for doubt about where they stand.
To widen the impact of the [Heller] ruling to local and state regions, gun rights proponents want to obtain a similar ruling in the Chicago case and thus eviscerate the stricter gun laws there and elsewhere in the country. Such a ruling would be a troubling development indeed, particularly for Chicago, a city that has an especially high rate of gun violence.
I certainly won't deny that Chicago has a high rate of violence (to the point that the city finds itself in danger of exsanguination), but that seems a rather odd endorsement of Chicago's "gun-free" status quo.
What I find particularly interesting about the editorial, though, is what is said by Violence Policy Center (VPC) legislative director Kristen Rand.
For Ms. Rand and other gun control advocates, one of the worst aspects of a victory by those who mounted McDonald v. Chicago would be that it would remove what she called “the most effective measures to prevent handgun violence.”
Um . . . "most effective"? The murder capital of the U.S. has the "most effective measures to prevent handgun violence"?
But now Ms. Rand brings us to the point of today's article.
She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law “and not in terms of the deadly effect on citizens of gun violence.” The court should know better than most that, as former U.S. Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
In other words, Ms. Rand is upset about the possibility of the Supreme Court using the Constitution--rather than a radical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament--as its guide. Kinda like the folks discussed here, she would seem to have issues with these guys.
From this, I draw two conclusions. First, the VPC is effectively acknowledging that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. Second, the VPC believes its agenda should trump the Constitution.
I'll allow that honorable people can disagree about the meaning of the Constitution, but people who know their agenda is unconstitutional--and pursue it anyway--sound an awful lot like domestic enemies, to me.