The Right Of The People: Democracy’s Longest Day

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued a legal groin-kick with steel-toed boots to the idea that the human right of self-defense exists at the sufference of governments and bureaucrats, in ruling for Otis McDonald XXX to XXX in his seminal lawsuit against the Duchy City of Chicago.

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”

Now, it’s our turn.


If you know me, you know I love a good analogy from military history.

The late sixties?  Those were, metaphorically, the years when the Germans rolled across Europe at will; gun control essentially won the battle for the hearts and minds of…well, much of the American “elite” and “intelligentsia”, and it felt like there was litte Real America could do about it.

1987, when Florida became the ninth state, and by far the largest, to adopt “shall-issue” concealed carry?  That was the Dieppe Raid raid; a bold counterstroke that showed Real America may have been down, but not out.

1991, when Dr. Sanford Levinson released The Embarassing Second Amendment in the Yale Law Review?  That was the battle of El Alamein; not a definitive battle in and of itself, it showed the world that the anti-freedom juggernaut was not invulnerable, and could be defeated.

2008, when the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that “Right of the People” meant people, not “National Guard”?  That was the bloody, ugly battle of the Atlantic, and the air battle over Germany, which made what was to follow feasible in the first place.

And this, today?  The McDonald decision?  It’s D-Day.  It’s the day all the preparatory work – the Yaltas, the raiding, the negotiations, the legal scholarship, the bombing, the posturing – all comes to an end.  It’s the day the big players – the Churchills and Hestons, the Mussolinis and the Lillehaugs, the Montgomeries and Guras, the Hitlers and the Heather Martens, the Pattons and the Kopels, the Swiss and the Laurence Tribes, the Goerings and the Daleys, the Eisenhowers and the Scalias – find their work, if not “done”, at least receding to the rear.  It’s now the job of the infantry.

That’d be us.  The grass roots.

The decision makes the court’s opinion in Heller, that the Second Amendment is a right of the people, binding on lower levels of law – as it should – but doesn’t toss out local laws wholesale.  Again, rightly.  A principled judicial conservative doesn’t legislate from the bench.

And so it’s up to us – the grass roots, the “infantry” of the Human Rights movement – to take up the battle now.  To take this battle to every pillbox of fascism and racism, the gun-grabbing city halls and state legislatures and county commissions, and turn the flamethrower of reason, the satchel charge of the Constitution, and the bayonet of human liberty on them, and destroy them, one by one, all of them.  To pound them out of existence through the weight of our numbers, the unstoppable passion of our attack, and the rightness of our cause.

And many of us “infantry” in the Higgins boats today won’t be here in the front lines when the news finally comes down that Gun Control, holed up in its bunker in San Francisco, has stuck a metaphoric (and ironic!) gun in its legal and social mouth and brought an end to the war.  This, as Churchill said, isn’t the end, or even the beginning of the end.   It’s the end of the beginning.

And it’s our job – every one of us Real Americans – to bring this thing to its end.  A prudent end, with Real, law-abiding Americans in control and criminals cowering in fear; a just end, with banana-republic tyrants like Richard Daley groveling for forgiveness before the souls of the thousands killed for want of the human right to self-defense, perhaps waddling through the afterlife with the symbolic muzzle of a metaphorical Mosin-Nagant jammed into his nether regions as cosmic penance; a sane end, with “gun control” spoken with the same dirty sneer that “McCarthyism” or “racism” get today.

And that end got a little closer today.

And it’s all in front of us.

Congratulations, Real America.  Take a day to celebrate.  Tomorrow, you’ll earn it all over again.

God Bless America.

19 thoughts on “The Right Of The People: Democracy’s Longest Day

  1. On the nosie, Mitch. I’ve just browsed through the decision, and it’s pretty good — the thing I’m looking for, at the moment, is a hint as to what sort of scrutiny the Court will use in evaluating state/local laws, and it’s pretty clear that the most we’re going to get is a hint.

    Still, it’s a great decision, and a great day.

  2. Actually Mitch, it incorporated the 2nd Amendment. and then proceeded to place boundaries around it.

    Quite frankly, as I said TWO YEARS AGO, this was where they were heading, and could have decided then considering the importance of the decsioin. Regardless, they had to do some logical hijinx to get to incorporation. including seeing words in the 14th which aren’t even CLOSE to there, and extending thoughts from 1850-1870, not from the framers.

    Regardless, this is a day I applaud, the 2nd Amendment ShOULD have been incorporated – and long ago, but it also puts lie to the idea that NO laws are allowed by states or “beurocrats” – anything but in fact – good luck arguing that all limits are unconstitutional in all regards in the future. You may not have suggested it, but many on the right have.

  3. Joel is spot on. This case was Round 2.

    The orcs response will be Okay fine, Heller says it’s a fundamental right in federal territory; and McDonald says so in state territories, too. So yes, you have a fundamental right to have a gun in the home for self defense.

    But we can restrict that right if we can come up with any plausible reason under the “rational basis” test. And boy, can we think up reasons why gun ownership isn’t entitled to as much protection as religion, or speech, or even abortion.

    Round 3 should be getting underway any day now.

  4. Actually Mitch, it incorporated the 2nd Amendment. and then proceeded to place boundaries around it.

    Well, no. It incorporated it, and declined to arbitrarily remove boundaries around it that exist as matters of local law; it sent Chicago’s law back down for reconsideration.

    Quite frankly, as I said TWO YEARS AGO, this was where they were heading,

    You and everyone else in the world…

    Regardless, they had to do some logical hijinx to get to incorporation. including seeing words in the 14th which aren’t even CLOSE to there,


    and extending thoughts from 1850-1870, not from the framers.

    Because the thoughts, from Cruickshank and Presser, were case law that related closely to the decision!

    good luck arguing that all limits are unconstitutional in all regards in the future. You may not have suggested it, but many on the right have.

    Well, thanks for making the distinction – but I am racking my brain to find an example of a significant conservative who says felons have the right to keep and bear arms.

    Got a cite on that?

  5. Thumb of Alfredo Garcia: Only in your fevered imagination has anyone said there should be no limitations on the 2nd. Every right carries some limitation and also responsibility.

    Mostly what I’ve heard from the right is wondering what the 2nd Amendment equivalent to crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater is….which is a far cry from declaring all limitations unconstitutional.

    At least give your strawmen names before you knock them down.

  6. Kevin,

    “What, don’t you want limitations?” is the mainstream left’s version of Wes Skoglund’s “shall issue will mean gangbangers can get guns”; I think the smart ones (the ones that start the memes) know it’s a dumb meme, but they know their audience just doesn’t know the different and never really got that whole “logic” thing anyway.

  7. Kevin, I think the 2nd amendment to yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater would be either giving guns to psychos (clinically diagnosed I mean) or possibly felons. Almost no good can come from it and a lot of bad can. Any self respecting conservative gun-rights activist would agree… hopefully.

  8. I heard another radio host who shall remain unnamed, say something very thought-provoking yesterday:

    “As a 2nd amendment supporter, today’s decision is wonderful in further solidifying the unimpeachability of our right to self defense. However, as a constitutional conservative and 10th amendment supporter, the SCOTUS once again, steamrolled the concept of sovereign states by removing the states’ ability to legislate and regulate as they see fit.”

    Now, granted, I was driving and I wasn’t able to tune into his show until about 5 minutes before the end of the first hour, so there was a LOT I’m sure I missed, but still. It sorta puts me into a dilemma of individual gun/self defense rights vs. being intellectually consistent of wanting the fed to leave the states the hell alone for ALL matters.

  9. For reference, regarding “Thumb’s” comments, 19th century court cases did in fact incorporate the 2nd amendment vs. the states, and in deliberations over the 14th Amendment, the possibility that states would disarm blacks was repeatedly raised. (source, Akhil Reed Amar, “The Bill of Rights”)

  10. Ben, seriously?

    Memory going in your old age? 😆

    It wasn’t even a year ago:

    (Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Confirmation Hearing, 7/14/09)

    SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is It Safe To Say That You Accept The Supreme Court’s Decision As Establishing That The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right? Is That Correct?”
    JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “Yes, Sir.”

    So how did Justice Sotomayor vote in the McDonald case?

  11. so she lied, shocking. This would be an argument against lifetime appointments. How about 20 year SCOTUS terms and if the justice wants to continue they need to be voted on again and confirmed by the Senate.

  12. K-Rod: correct. She accepts that it’s an fundamental, basic, individual human right, that only applies outside of the fifty states, and, even there, has strict limitations.

    And, presumably, when it comes to freedom of speech, she thinks that the states have the rght to tlw vwls.

  13. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Hope For Real Change

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.