The Supreme Court will be discussing the McDonald case tomorrow.  This case has the potential to be one of the most important human rights case in recent American history; at issue is the power of pettifogging state bureaucrats and demigogues to regulate your right to protect your and your families’ lives and property from the scumbags that the aforementioned bureaucrats and demigogues can not. 

The usual pack of orcs and their sympathizers are doing the usual public-relations maneuvering in advance of the ruling:

Gun control advocates think, if not pray, they can win by losing when the Supreme Court decides whether the constitutional right to possess guns serves as a check on state and local regulation of firearms.

In other words, anti-human-rights orcs like the Brady Factory Organization and the Violence Preservation Policy Center are hoping to lay the groundwork for many state impositions on the human right of self-defense, rather than a coordinated federal one.

The justices will be deciding whether the Second Amendment – like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights – applies to states as well as the federal government. It’s widely believed they will say it does.

But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.

Well, duh. 

This is one of the more absurd fallacies that the left brings up whenever the subject turns to the less-upmarket neighorhoods of the Bill of Rights, the Second and Tenth Amendments; most people agree that we need to have some government, some regulation, some restrictions to prevent the worst-case scenarios.  Opposing absurd, onerous and, yes, unconstitutional actions, regulations and restrictions doesn’t negate this.

The National Rifle Association and virtually every pro-human-rights organization already favor, and push, the only kind of regulations that actually matter – rules and restrictions that are onerous to criminals and those who should not have guns.

And the orcs?

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments “from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence.”

But of course, Brady’s and the VPPC’s idea of “reasonable” always means “onerous to the law-abiding”.  No exceptions.

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns.

Of which only a tiny percentage of either ever use a gun for nefarious reasons.  Which doesn’t prevent the anti-human-rights crowd, and their willing or ignorant dupes in the media, from trying to play the “scary numbers” game:

Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

Of the 15,000 that are not suicides, the decided majority are related to the “War on Drugs”‘; of all the foul play killings, the vast majority are carried out by people with criminal records, who demonstrably should not be allowed to have guns in the first place.

But those aren’t the ones that concern the orcs:

Chicago is defending its gun laws at the high court. Mayor Richard Daley said a ruling against his city would spawn even more suits nationwide and lead to more gun violence.

Gosh, Mayor Daley – you mean, more of the violence that our nation’s most violent city’s complete ban on all civilian gun ownership has utterly failed to dent? 

That would be the smart question.  But Daley isn’t talking to smart people, or people who care about human rights:

“How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?” Daley said at a Washington news conference last week that also included the parents of a Chicago teenager who was shot on a bus as he headed home from school.

Annette Nance-Holt said her only child, 16-year-old Blair Holt, shielded his friend when a gang member boarded a bus and began shooting at rival gang members.

“You might ask, ‘What good is Chicago’s handgun law if so many of our young people are still being shot?'” Nance-Holt said. “All I can say is, imagine how many more would be if the law were not there.”

None.  Or, very likely, less.  Because this sort of crime – mass gang shootings with utter arrogant impunity – are pretty much the sole province of the city full of disarmed citizens sheep .

For those of you who don’t eat up SCOTUS trivia for the fun of it, the McDonald case is all about setting the precedent that the Heller decision that the Second Amendment right “of the people” means people, not the “National Guard”, must be observed by the states:

In earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court has done so by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

The court also has relied on that same clause – “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” – in cases that established a woman’s right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

This is the approach the NRA favors.

Justifyably so.

But many conservative and legal scholars – as well as the Chicago challengers – want the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law “which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Hopefully the “privilege” of citizens sheep to be “immune” from protecting themselves will get laughed out of court.

The deliberations should take place tomorrow – this blog will cover the discussion to the best of my ability.  As with Heller, we’ll probably get the decision in June.

Suffice to say I’ll be watching it.