Gun Grabbers have their Day in Court

Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (Alan Korwin)

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.
-- 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

This will be a landmark decision

Last year, The Supreme Court upheld our right to bear arms in the Heller Decision, but since it was a DC case, it was silent on such bans imposed by states and cities.

The Chicago Case before the Supreme Court is complex and involves much more that just the right to bear arms.  Can the federal government compel states to respect The Bill of Rights?  If so, is this a violation of states rights?

A straight reading of the 2nd Amendment should settle it:  Chicago may not infringe upon a person's right to own a gun.  Unfortunately, progressive lawmakers have trampled and twisted our constitution, and deferential judges have too often let them get by with it.

Jason Adkins at Big Government explains:

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  

Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  

This case revolves around not just the 2nd Amendment, but also the 14th.  It's a very long amendment, passed to give teeth to the 13th, which abolished slavery.  Here is the relevant section:

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. 

Gun Rights champion Alan Korwin has written The Definitive Article on this case.  He breaks it down so us non-lawyers can understand it.  Here are some excerpts:

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

 The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery — the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves — especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States.

Gun Rights vs. States Rights? 

Here's a critical issue:  If the court overturns the ban, is it a blow to states' rights?  As important is a separate issue:  If the federal government can use the 14th Amendment to force states to respect a right mentioned in the 2nd, will liberals use this precedent to force states to recognize other "rights" that they invent?

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run.

Will gun rights activists end up providing cover fire for progressive schemers?

Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know.

Interesting stuff. I don't see this as a states rights issue because our God-given rights may not be infringed by anyone.  As for the progressive schemers, the tide seems to be turning against them.