A new Second Amendment case

This *could* be it, folks.

From the SCOTUS Blog:

 Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., attorney who won the historic Supreme Court ruling last year establishing a personal right to have a gun for self-defense at home, started a new challenge in the Supreme Court Tuesday.  It seeks to have the Second Amendment right enforced against state, county and city gun control laws.

…

Arguing that the Second Amendment right is a “fundamental” one, the new petition said that means that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that such rights “may not be violated by any form of government throughout the United States.  Accordingly, Chicago’s handgun ban must meet the same fate as that which befell the District of Columbia’s former law.”

Part of their argument is that the Justices should step in now to resolve a dispute among federal appeals courts and state supreme courts on whether the Second Amendment is absorbed (technically, “incorporated”) into the Fourteenth Amendment — a part of the Constitution that operates against state and local government.

Here’s hoping. As I pointed out yesterday, the idea that the 2nd Amendment somehow does not actually apply to citizens of the US if their state or local governments don’t want it to is a stupid one. Personally I was surprised that the Heller decision was even allowed to make it to the Supreme Court…. the USSC has studiously avoided the 2nd Amendment at every turn for decades. But once it got there, I was appaled – but not overly surprised – that it came down to a 5-to-4 ruling. In a sane world, it would’ve been a 9-0 ruling in favor of Heller. But now that the precedent has been set, the USSC is going to find it difficult to not incorporate the 2nd, as it’s applicability to all citizens is obvious.

One of the Four Dumbasses who voted against Heller was David Souter, who will soon be retiring, and likely replaced with 0bama’s pick, Sonya Sotomayor. Sotomayor’s views on the 2nd Amendment are vaguely understood (although her record has shown that she supports arresting people who have sticks within their own homes), but can be relied upon to be anti-Constitutional and pro-totalitarian (otherwise 0bama would not have picked her).

The “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is pretty clear. The 2nd Amendment recognizes that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms; any state that attempts to deny that right is in violation of the 14th Amendment. My preference would be for “lawmakers” who pass laws that abridge the Constitution to be summarily removed from office and barred from ever holding any elective office ever again (with termination of all government benefits such as medical care and pensions).

If this court case comes to pass and the USSC rules in favor of incorporation, expect to the see the totalitarian Left go completely ape, and start screaming about “blood in the streets” or “old west shootouts” or other hysterical fear-mongering nonsense… just like they trot out whenever a state goes from may-issue to shall-issue. And just as in the case of concealed carry, their fear-mongering will be baseless.