2nd Amendment -- President's Plan to Challenge New Gun Rights

By JW Ross

To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.

The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.

Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.

In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.

Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights

By Bob Barr

Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.

2nd Amendment -- Pure and Simple

By Ralph Glasser

The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.

In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:

Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.

Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.

­ From the opinion pages of  SJ-R.com