Friday, October 2, 2009

Pundits Weigh in on McDonald

As discussed a couple of days ago the Supreme Court has decided to take up the case McDonald v. Chicago. At issue is Chicago’s draconian handgun ban, which has done absolutely nothing to decrease the crime rate in Chicago. Violence in the city has continued to increase with the recent murder of Derrion Albert serving as a stark example of the all-to-common brutality in Chicago’s streets. At this point, several pundits are starting to weigh in on the issue, and right now most seem to be predicting that the Constitution will actually be upheld.

Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune wrote a short piece discussing the ban. It hits most of the relevant points, including the fact that the ban hasn’t decreased crime. He also cites Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda as giving the ban only a 20% chance of surviving this challenge. The Tribune allows comments on their web site which seem to be running more heavily in favor of getting rid of the ban, but there are still several people clinging to the “collective right” interpretation of the law who clearly haven’t read their history. I added a brief shot to the discussion:

“People love to cite the militia clause of the Second Amendment, but then trip over that "right of the people" part... They also fail to read the Federalist and the writings of the people who actually debated, authored, and ultimately ratified the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there as much to protect America from outside invasion as it is to protect America from a strong central government run amok. Their intent was that the populace should be armed - and armed as well as any army. Not practical today, but the individual rights interpretation is the only interpretation with historical backing. Don't believe me - go read your American history”

Don’t know if it will do any good, but I’ve found the best way to defeat someone who thinks they “know it all” in an argument is to prove that they really don’t know it all.

Eric Zorn, also of the Tribune, also predicts that the Chicago ban is going down because of some of the broad language in Heller. Again, there are several gun-banners posting in the comments, but they’re starting to sound more and more like petulant children who aren’t getting their way as the facts don’t support their interpretations, and they’re being called out on it.

Declan McCullagh over at CBS as also written an opinion on the issue, but his takes a different view focusing on an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment applied to the states in many post Civil War court decisions (where the rights of African Americans were being trampled). The comments on this one seem to have more of an anti-gun slant to them overall with many people playing the “it’s not the 1800’s anymore” card and maintaining that cities are “different.” I’ve got news for them, they either have inalienable rights, or they don’t. It’s time America got back to recognizing our inalienable rights as such!

It proves to be an interesting next few months as the briefs begin to pour in for the January hearing of the case. Next year will be a pivotal year for our rights as affirmed under the Second Amendment – regardless of how this case is decided. Remember to keep up your support for pro-Second groups (see links on the sidebar) as they will be the ones presenting large portions of this case.

Until next time!!!

No comments: