Today is an important day in United States Supreme Court history, and in the ongoing battle to protect the individual freedoms enshrined in the Second Amendment.
Two years ago, the Court finally and explicitly confirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller. Today, it hears oral argument in McDonald v. Chicago to determine whether that right protects citizens against state infringement as well as in federal jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C.
Everyday citizens unfamiliar with Court precedent and the legal contortions distinguishing which provisions of the Bill of Rights will or will not be protected will scratch their heads and wonder, “if the First Amendment applies to protect citizens against state infringement, why not the Second Amendment?” The Court has also recognized Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment protections against state violation. The legal niceties, however, are less important than the overarching illogic that even attempts to render Second Amendment rights less important or worthy of protection.
The simple fact is that this case illustrates once again the way in which politicized judges decide which rights they consider important based upon their own personal political preferences. Our Founding Fathers did not draft the Constitution as a byzantine code to be understood and applied only by conceited judges. Rather, they intentionally began the Constitution with the words, “We the People” and created it to be understood, treasured and applied by everyday citizens.
Accordingly, the legal nuances are less important than the overall theme: big government once again seeks to infringe upon citizens’ individual freedoms and Constitutional rights via court decree. Fortunately, the Court appears likely to side with the Second Amendment over the city of Chicago. But even if it abandons logic and principle by upholding Chicago’s prohibition, the battle will continue with citizens exercising their rights at the federal, state and local legislative and executive levels. In which case gun “control” advocates may ultimately come to regret a fleeting Pyrrhic judicial triumph.
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube