The Supreme Court. They’re hearing arguments and making a decision on the idea of incorporation, or in simpler terms whether the Bill of Rights extends it’s authority to states and local governments as well, in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago. Now, most of the Bill of Rights has already been incorporated. McDonald only deals with one amendment. The second one.
My question is, why is this even up for discussion?
Rights either exist, or they don’t. We can argue about specific rights existing until we’re blue in the face, but we can all agree that some rights were considered so important that our Founding Fathers saw fit to actually protect them specifically. The First Amendment, a favorite of mine, actually protects a pile of rights such as freedom of speech, religion, of the press, assembly, etc. Meanwhile, the Second is a single, solitary right protected in the it’s own amendment.
To me, that kind of indicates something important, that the Founding Fathers kind of believed that the right to keep and bear arms was vital. Their own writings clearly indicate that they believed that the right to own and carry firearms was absolute, just as the right to assemble was. There wasn’t a lot of wiggle room, based on their writings.
However, municipalities started passing strict gun measures. The Sullivan Act in New York, the D.C. law that was struck down in Heller vs. District of Columbia, and the Chicago law now before the Supreme Court are all examples. And many gun control advocates believe these measures are “common sense” and realistic.
However, where would these same people be if the law being discussed was regarding incorporating the First Amendment? What if their freedom to speak whatever they wanted was being restricted by so-called “common sense” measures? Would they be up in arms? You bet they would.
Now, we have the same five justices who overturned Heller still on the bench, so Sotomayor’s appointment will have no bearing on the case. Chances are good that total gun bans will be outlawed. However, the gun control advocates will still try and strip away rights, they’ll just have to find a new tool for doing so.
Let’s not even discuss the fact that these measures never work. Let’s not even get into the idea that the means of self defense is an absolute right, and that even the most liberal gun grabber tends to believe you have a right to defend yourself at some point. Let’s not let these facts get in the way of what’s going on here.
What’s going on? A 76 year old father of eight is having to go to court to have the right to own a piece of property that, on it’s own, can’t hurt a living soul. It injure another, it needs a person to either be negligent or criminal, and yet people are prevented from having the means to defend themselves. He’s having to go to court to get the ability to own property, despite the fact that our Founding Fathers believed it was an absolute right.
Hopefully, our rights will be restored soon. Until then, I guess if you find yourself in Chicago, you’ll just have to be a good victim.
