Later today, the United States Supreme Court will issue final rulings for their current session. Among them- as expected- the ruling on the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the second case in what will doubtless be a long line of cases challenging the myriad of anti-individual firearms ownership interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
If the hot wind gushing out of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley over the weekend is any indication, anti-gun folks are expecting the Supreme Court to rule the Chicago ban unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
If so, it will mark what may, in fact, be a more significant victory for individual firearm ownership than the landmark Heller decision. The indivual right being affirmed under the Second Amendment and incorporated to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment means, essentially, that no individual municipality can suddenly decide to outlaw all ownership of firearms. Together, Heller and McDonald will – justifiably – call into question many of the ridiculous gun regulations currently in place at various municipalities across the nation. It would potentially set the stage for challenges to anti-gun laws that would now unarguably be indefensible.<\/p>\n
In a political climate where incumbents are viewed as out-of-touch with their constituencies, it might also serve as yet another reminder that ideological politicians ignoring voters today will likely find themselves out of work in 2011.<\/p>\n
A favorable ruling will also cement the reputation of attorney Alan Gura. A victory in McDonald would make him 2-0 before the Supreme Court – arguing the least developed area of individual rights granted – and guaranteed- under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n
It would also give former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement a 1-1 record on the matter. He argued- unsuccessfully- in favor of the District of Columbia’s position in the Heller Case. In McDonald v. Chicago, however, Clement, retained by the National Rifle Association, argued along with Gura against the Chicago ban.<\/p>\n
As in Heller, a decision against the Chicago gun ban won’t mean the Windy City’s beleaguered residents – including 76-year old Otis McDonald- can suddenly start arming themselves against a criminal element that has not- and will never – seen it necessary to give up firearms simply because of anything as silly as a city ordinance prohibiting them.<\/p>\n
What it will likely mean is that another anti-gun politician will try to spin a decision that makes them look foolish in the face of facts. At that point, look for Daley, et al, to come up with as many obstructions to legal firearms ownership as possible. Chicago media outlets are already reporting that Daley’s planning in the event of an unfavorable ruling include everything from gun insurance to mandatory -and recurring- proficiency testing.<\/p>\n
And, like District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty’s thumbing of his nose at the Supreme Court, look for outrage from the pro-gun side of the argument and another imperious silence from the Supreme Court. Despite having the authority to order compliance – and lock the recalcitrant politicians in a cozy cell for contempt- the Supreme Court has a record of unwillingness to exercise that authority.<\/p>\n
This morning, Alan Gura, Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation’s founder and Executive-VP Alan Gottlieb will be on the steps of the Supreme Court, making themselves available to the host of media who will be there for the ruling.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association will be holding a press conference at approximately 10 a.m. Central time at the Hotel Allegro in Chicago.<\/p>\n
With the possible exception of Mr. McDonald, the latest decision won’t be the end of their fight to guarantee the individual right to legally and responsibly own firearms. The possibility remains the Court could leave open the possibility of “reasonable regulation” of firearms ownership.<\/p>\n
If that is, indeed the case, Gura and Gottlieb, et. al, will go back to work preparing the next legal challenge to groups who feel that “reasonable regulation” is synonymous for their interpretation: “impossible to comply”.<\/p>\n
We’ll keep you posted.<\/p>\n