Second Amendment

Judge Frank Easterbrook, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is known for two things: First, he writes some of the crispest, liveliest opinions that the federal bench has seen in decades. Second, he has absolutely no tolerance for nonsense. Both of these traits were on display yesterday, in the Seventh Circuit's newest opinion in NRA v. Chicago.

The NRA was certainly tempted to endorse Harry Reid, as TWS reported, in order to keep a gun-control backer like Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin from becoming Senate Majority Leader, but the gun-rights group is announcing today that it will not endorse Reid in his re-election bid in Nevada. Why not?

After the Supreme Court affirmed this week in McDonald v. Chicago that Second-Amendment rights for individuals do indeed apply even within a 25-mile radius of organic grocers and a liberal city council, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley went to work to subvert his constituents' newfound right to self defense.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of individual gun rights today, striking down Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban almost two years to the day after the Court struck down the D.C. gun ban.

Mayor Mike is coming for your guns, but not even this administration -- and this Congress -- is naive enough to play along. Bloomberg appealed to Congress this week to address what is oddly being called the "terror gap," but which supporters of Second Amendment rights better describe as "secret government lists." The question is this: Should U.S. citizens on terror watch lists be allowed to purchase firearms? The answer from Congress is yes (though the Huffington Post and the New York Times would have you believe it's just Republicans obstructing Bloomberg's "common sense" proposal).

Two years ago, the Supreme Court heard the hotly controversial Heller case, in which it ultimately recognized a personal right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.  That case, which pertained only to federal (and District of Columbia) gun regulations, not state or other local gun regulations, sharply divided activists along partisan lines.

The Court is now considering McDonald v. City of Chicago, a follow-up case asking whether persons have an equivalent right against state and local governments.  The familiar partisan divide has returned, but this time the more heated divide separates dueling factions on the right.  Even more surprising is the subject of the debate: A 137-year-old line of Supreme Court precedent involving the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in McDonald v. Chicago -- the case challenging Chicago's handgun ban. Judging from the transcripts, it looks like a majority of justices favor applying the Second Amendment to the states. SCOTUSblog has an extended analysis of the day's proceedings:

He's perhaps an unlikely plaintiff in a challenge to Chicago's hand gun ban before the Supreme Court this week, but the 76-year-old South Side Democrat says his right to defend himself isn't about party.

"I live and think like a human being, concerned for others as I am myself," he told Fox News.