The American Militia

Gaining More Ground

The 9th Circuit Nordyke decision, cited above, did not sit too well with anti-freedom entities and even within other members of the court itself. On its own motion the court called for an En- Bank Review (a review by the full court, not just a 3 judge panel) which is really a review by ten justices plus one chief Justice. That panel has been named with judge Alex Kozinski as chief. Judge Kozinski is known for some very freedom oriented opinions and statements in past trials. That panel stands ready to review Nordyke, but it is limbo, pending the Supreme Court proceedings in McDonald V. Chicago. After the McDonald case is decided, the 9th circuit will act if needed, kind of like letting some else do all the hard work, knowing that what they do will control your actions after the fact, so you might just as well wait until they go first.

McDonald V. Chicago; a Second Amendment case using a14th amendment test

The McDonald importance is best described by legal scholar Alan Korwin in one of his Page Nine articles as presented below. Page Nine is a presentation of current issues, sometimes with a lead in consisting of what the Mainstream (Lamestream) media said, and then Alan’s interpretation.


The Uninvited Ombudsman Report, No. 73
by Alan Korwin, Oct. 12, 2009

Item #8- McDonald v. Chicago

The lamestream media told you:

Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handguns is coming up for challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court, with a ruling likely due by June 2010, and an oral-argument date as early as February, expected to be set soon. It is the second major gun-rights case to reach the Court, following the 2008 landmark Heller case that overturned the Wash., D.C. strict ban on working guns at home. Alan Gura, lead counsel in the Heller case, is lead counsel in this case, and is quoted as saying, "State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town." The case is being brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, and four local plaintiffs.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Although this is presented almost everywhere as a Second Amendment case, and it does and will affect 2A in profound ways, the real significance of this case is in its 14th Amendment implications.

The 14th Amendment is supposed to protect the "privileges and immunities" of all Americans. It was enacted soon after the War Between The States (1868), to prevent states from denying rights to freed slaves. The intent was to apply the Bill of Rights to people regardless of the state they were in.

This was completely eviscerated in the Slaughterhouse cases (1873), and has remained dormant since then, leaving only the due process and equal protection clauses in 14A to carry that water. You can google the elements of this situation so I don't have to bore you with the incredibly fascinating lengthy details here.

McDonald, using the Second Amendment, is a stage upon which the High Court can at last restore 14A to the prominence it deserves and is intended to have. The issue could have arisen in other contexts, but here we get a stunning two for one drama.

If 14A is restored, the benefits for liberty, limiting government, protecting states rights and civil rights, and slowing or stopping power-mad federal legislators and Congress as a whole are ginormous, with no way to adequately express in words how big that would be for your freedom -- an effect that will play out for decades to come.

So, sure, we want to see 2A "incorporated" against the states, and prevent states from flatly ignoring 2A and denying or infringing fundamental rights as they have been doing for decades. And sure, the gun-rights players and the hopelessly biased "news" media are highly focused on this important element of the case and Chicago's tyrannical gun ban for innocent people. But it is the 14A aspect that deserves at least equal attention, because it will affect the entire Bill of Rights, 90% of which could also use the help.

[End Quote]

It appears that we are in a time of increasing Second Amendment activity, the re-institution and re-acceptance of that original statement of Citizen protection. But, because the Second Amendment has been so heavily attacked in the past, the proper and effective legal cases have now become “ripe” (a real legal term meaning ready for trial) for a judicial decision. You know that old saying, “Beware of what you wish for, you might just get it”? It looks like those who would infringe freedom at arms, for example deny incorporation of the Second Amendment (and possibly impose socialist un-constitutional and extra-legal controls) are about to receive the Unintended Consequences of their actions in the form of a potentially very far reaching 14th Amendment case.

This is a good thing. The American Militia stands ready for the good fight, but it is just as happy to be in the soft fight rather than the hard fight.

This Information Is From MCSM

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message
is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

Home Page

Copyright © 2009 MCSM
Most recent revision November 2009