EYEWITNESS REPORT
Mar. 1, 2010 (Late)

I’m back in my hotel, having endured the weather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in the a.m., the case that will decide the standing of our Second Amendment rights in the 50 states.

Well, people are lining up all right. Young people who can withstand it.

It’s bitter cold with a 20 MPH wind, but if you’ve decided to come here for the latest most seminal gun-rights case imaginable that’s not going to stop you.

At 5PM when I arrived (night before the oral argument) there were eight people awaiting seats for tomorrow’s McDonald v. Chicago 14th Amendment/Second Amendment case. By the time I left, with my feet too numb to feel, there were thirteen people trickled in, including a GW law-school student and her Mom who brought an air matress and a comforter. When I cell-phoned some of the stalwarts later, before beginning this draft, I was told there were nearly 50 people there, including 15 or so high-school students who decided to rough it and see a landmark case at the Supreme Court. Only 50 are guaranteed seats, so the window of opportunity is pratically closed. The Marshall’s office expected the crowd to develop in the a.m., looks like they’ll be SOOL. Coulda been worse — for Heller, the line started TWO days ahead of time. This night-before stuff is child’s play. But it’s COOOOOLD.

As usual, the hale and hearty on line are more knowledgable about this case
than most of the public and the media. Wash Post made their above-the-fold front-page story today a referendum on Justice Scalia, read like an unsavory biography (they don’t like the guy!), instead of the merits of the case; what facts Court reporter Robert Barnes did provide were out of whack, thin, misleading, pretty standard for that rag. Guess what they chose for an illustration — a picture of Chirs Broughton carrying his AR-15 at the Obama rally in Phoenix!! I kid you not. That makes sense, right? The Wash Compost’s idea of a gun image is a months old piece of discriminatory controversy, not something depicting basic human rights.

We had dynamic chats on the street about the premise of the case (the Post barely touched it), constitutional realities, the unknowns, the likely outcomes, the vote — Mike the blogger, incredibly knowledgable and with past cases at his fingertips with such detail and a tongue too fast even for me to follow, predicts a 9 -0 result — the Court will not overrule its Heller jurisprudence, and even hopelessly anti-gun-rights Ginsburg will forgo her hatred of 2A to reintstate 14A, or so he believes. Robert Cumberland flew in from California and is first in line — and he knows his stuff. This case affects him more than even Heller — that case set the groundwork, but this is the one that might actually force reinstatement of his abrogated rights, and he wants to be here to see it.

The carnival atmosphere is definitely lacking. There isn’t a single camera crew set up — at Heller there were dozens at this point, but no doubt there will be some tomorrow. Yet this case stands to have more net effect than Heller, it just doesn’t break ground in the same way. Dick Heller was out there after I left (phone tips from the folks I met, seven men and one woman), chatting up the crowd, enjoying his 15 years of fame. His nephew plans to be on line to see the proceedings, some guy named Robert is holding a place in line in the freezing cold for a party unnamed, at $20 an hour. Dan Schmutter, attorney for JPFO dropped by to see what’s up. This is definitely the hot ticket in town — all seats in Chambers are reserved, save for the precious few for the rabble (what we call the public).

Perhaps the most telling perspective came from a British theology professor visiting here, met in a bar on the frigid way home — he thinks the only rights you legitimately have are those the government gives you. You can have a gun if government “allows” it, with no ammo, locked in a locker, and this is freedom. If he was on the Court we’d be doomed. I’m not making this up.

Exhausted, need to pack, will observe tomorow and provide my observatiosn soon. Real soon.

Alan.

PS. Remember: In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.

The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:
Chicago Gun Case

The amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae brief

Background on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:
Supreme Court Gun Cases

My initial summary and press release on the issues:  here.

Every amicus brief filed:  here.

Supreme Court official website

[Editor's note: Dr. Robert Cumberland, a California chemist, has been pressing the California Attorney General about discrepancies in the definitions and descriptions of "assault weapons" for at least ten years.]

Tomorrow oral arguments begin in McDonald v. City of Chicago, an effort to overturn a ban on guns in the city of Chicago. Here is some background reading.

All eyes on Supreme Court Tuesday for Chicago gun ban showdown by Dave Workman:

Two years ago, attorney Alan Gura stood before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue a landmark firearm civil rights case – District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller – that would ultimately lead to the high court’s definition of the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right.

Tomorrow morning – call it “Black Tuesday” for gun prohibitionists, if one is to believe the court prognosticators – Gura will once again be standing before the court, arguing that the City of Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and should be struck down, and that the Second Amendment should be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment. If the court majority once again agrees with his arguments, it will be the next major step in reversing more than 100 years of gun rights erosion that some say began with the “Black Codes” in the Reconstruction South and the notorious “Deadline” laws in Old West cattle towns, to say nothing of the abysmal Sullivan Law in New York….

Second Amendment drama: Act II by Lyle Denniston:

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky in Alexandria, Va., will argue for four Chicago-area residents and two gun rights groups, followed by Paul D. Clement of King & Spaulding in Washington with 10 minutes for the National Rifle Association. James A. Feldman, as a special assistant to the Chicago corporation counsel, will argue for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill….

On the day 20 months ago that the Supreme Court decided the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to have a gun for private use, the first of an expected swarm of follow-up lawsuits was filed to test just how far that right will extend. That same-day sequel has now reached the Court, raising a misleadingly simple question: must state, county and city governments obey that Amendment for the first time in the 219 years it has been a part of the Constitution? The outcome will affect many more gun control laws than Heller itself did. By one estimate, some 90 million people in the U.S. have guns — 200 million of them — and most of those are regulated more by state and local laws than by federal laws….

Gun case on way to Supreme Court creates strange bedfellows:

Otis McDonald, 76, lives in Morgan Park, a tough Chicago neighborhood where the same youngsters who used to shoot hoops in his back yard are now threatening his life.

A law-abiding citizen, McDonald wants to keep a handgun in his home to protect himself against gangs but that’s against Chicago’s gun-control laws.

“The people who want to control me, my family, my property — these are the people who I want to protect myself from,” McDonald told the Chicago Tribune.

McDonald’s attempt to keep and use his weapon lawfully has been rejected by the trial court and the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, both of which ruled in favor of the city. The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue Tuesday in McDonald vs. Chicago….

Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling:

Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its “right to keep and bear arms.” It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

A ruling overturning the Chicago ordinance would open the door to gun rights suits nationwide. “You will see a wave of lawsuits against state and local gun laws. This is just the first shot in a broad-based gun rights offensive,” said Dennis Henigan, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

The city’s lawyers say firearms have been regulated throughout American history — and without interference from federal judges. In the 1770s, Boston, Philadelphia and New York prohibited discharging a gun within the city. Even in the Wild West, cattle towns like Dodge City, Kan., required cowboys to turn in their guns.

But defenders of the 2nd Amendment say their goal is to restore the “right to keep and bear arms” to its proper place as a constitutional right….

Revive ‘privileges or immunities’:

One of the biggest cases the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this year involves the right to bear arms. But in the long run, its decision in McDonald v. Chicago may be far more important to America’s entrepreneurs. It all depends on whether the justices decide to revive a constitutional provision it has neglected for more than a century.

When it was ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment added several revolutionary new provisions to the Constitution, barring states from violating the “privileges or immunities” of citizens, or taking anyone’s life, liberty or property without “due process of law,” or depriving people of the “equal protection of the laws.” But the first time it heard a case under that amendment — in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases — the Supreme Court basically erased the privileges or immunities clause, dramatically limiting the way the federal government would protect people against wrongful acts by state officials….

The Sunlight Foundation drew about 30% more tweeters than the White House for last week’s health care summit. Both websites carried a live video stream of the whole event from 10AM to 6PM, but with one crucial difference.

As each participant was speaking, the Sunlight page displayed a list of the speaker’s financial contributors next to the video feed. So, for example, if a senator was advocating pro-big-pharma solutions, you might see a list of his big-pharma donors displayed next to the video as he spoke. It puts a whole different sunlight on things!

The Sunlight Foundation is the premier organization pushing the envelope of Internet technology to empower citizens with insider information about our politicians and about legislation before Congress. We urge our readers to get familiar with their many offerings:

• Sunlight Foundation — the basic webite is a good place to start.
• Open Congress — everything you want to know about legislation, including its current status and the full text with support for your comments. “Everyone can be an insider. Learn how to track, comment, and share.”
• Capitol Words — If you want to know what Congress is really thinking, track word frequencies in the Congressional record. Currently, they are concerned with health care more than fiscal and spending issues by a ratio of more than two to one.
• Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker — shares “information that representatives of foreign governments, political parties and government-controlled entities must disclose to the U.S. Justice Department when they seek to influence U.S. policy.”
• Party Time — “From the early hours of the morning until late in the evening, politicians are partying. Sunlight’s PARTY TIME can help you find out who is partying, where and when.”

For the interesting story on how Sunlight prepared to carry the health care summit live, read Sunlight Live Recap: How We Did It by Jake Brewer.

Last Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 2314, a bill that creates a “tribe” for Hawaiians including a separate government. If you want to track the progress of this folly through the Senate and presidential signing, you can do so at Open Congress.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka Bill after Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), grants native Hawaiians rights similar to those currently enjoyed by American Indians and native Alaskans. Ignoring the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” all of the Dems and six idiotic Pubs voted to Balkanize what has long been a homogeneous state.

Obama’s signing of this bill is a foregone conclusion. While still a presidential candidate, the allegedly Hawaii-born Obama announced his support of this bill:

Hawaii has always acknowledged and celebrated diversity, and an important part of Hawaii’s culture is the Native Hawaiian people. For this reason, I am proud to support Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye in their efforts to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act provides both the process and opportunity for Native Hawaiian communities to engage themselves in and reorganize their governing entity to establish a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States. The process set forth in this important legislation empowers Native Hawaiians to explore and address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii….

Some of the problems with this quite possibly unconstitutional legislation are enumerated by the Eagle Forum:

H.R. 2314 will create a Hawaiian race-based government for people with Native Hawaiian blood living anywhere in the United States. H.R. 2314 would create a racially separate government that would operate like an Indian tribe with its own laws and racial voting restrictions anywhere in the United States. This new “tribe” would include about 20 percent of Hawaii’s residents plus some 400,000 Americans nationwide, making it larger than any actual Indian tribe….

Congress does not possess the authority to extend tribal recognition to Native Hawaiians under the Indian Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution)….

It is unconstitutional and against the law to divide the American people solely on account of race or ethnicity, as stated by the 15th Amendment. In Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court stated, “One of the reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.”

This bill is inherently racially discriminatory. The people under the jurisdiction of this new government wouldn’t even be defined by geography, community or cultural cohesiveness, but by race alone….

H.R. 2314 gives the new entity “inherent powers” and would remove state authority. This means that under H.R. 2314, a Native Hawaiian business owner could be exempt from a state sales tax while his non-Native Hawaiian competitor down the street is not and is required to pay….

[H.R. 2314] does not assure that the new race-based government will be democratic. This bill gives Native Hawaiians “self-determination” to choose total independence or any other form of government.

[H.R. 2314] provides no procedure, avenue, or option to enable Hawaiians to decide if they even want to authorize this race-based government in our midst.

Money appears to be the motivation for this legislation. The bill ensures that the new Native Hawaiian government can negotiate gambling rights with the state of Hawaii and the federal government.

This legislation is flying under the radar. The mainstream media shows hardly a ripple.

Armchair activists! It is time to write, phone, fax, or email your senators and tell them what a stupid idea this is!

Contact your Senators