By Jim Shepherd

Most of the conversational around the industry since [last] Tuesday's Supreme Court oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case has been pretty optimistic. It seems a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court will vacate both firearms restriction ordinances in Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park, lllinois.

But there's been very little said about Otis McDonald, the 76-year old retired maintenance engineer who's the primary name on a lawsuit that may become yet another fundamental rib in American jurisprudence.

McDonald and his wife live in the far South side of Chicago where they've watched their neighborhood deteriorate from familial to downright dangerous. Despite having his home wired with burglar alarms "wired right into the police station" and owning a legal firearm (a shotgun), McDonald said he felt he would be better protected if he also had a handgun. His rationale was simple: a handgun would be easier for an aging husband or wife to handle.

Despite the fact that Chicago police point out the fact that it's mainly property crimes in his neighborhood, they can't deny the fact they've gotten worse. Burglaries and thefts in McDonald's area risen from 881 in 2006 to 1,215 in 2008 (the latest figures available). Murders have remained steady at 17 per year.

So, Otis McDonald joined the Illinois State Rifle Association, hoping to find an answer. What he found was attorney Alan Gura, looking for Chicago residents to bring a challenge to the city's handgun ban - and a broader interpretation to the Heller decision.

By Gerard Valentino

When a disgruntled employee shot two supervisors earlier this week, Ohio State University added its name to the list of educational institutions with multiple victim shootings and a policy against legal concealed carry on campus.

During the debate about concealed carry in Ohio several years ago, the OSU administration took the predictable, and intellectually lazy, stance that guns don't have a place on campus, where enlightened thought should be unencumbered by such a "threat."

Basically, they argued that open and challenging debate can't take place if concealed carry is allowed on campus. A clear indication of how little faith college administrators put in the self-control of students and faculty.

Although college administrators claim they are among the most progressive thinkers in the world, with superior deductive reasoning skills, their argument against legal concealed carry on campus fails to rise above the shrill cries that guns scare them, and so they should scare you too.

Such a poor argument, devoid of any semblance of logic, displays the narrow-minded thought process that has invaded so-called institutions of higher learning.

The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the city of Cleveland's ongoing fight to enforce its illegal local gun control ordinances.

Last November, a three judge panel in the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals sided with Cleveland, declaring that Ohio R.C 9.68 - which became law in 2007 with passage of HB347 to preempt local gun control and ensure statewide uniformity of gun laws - is unconstitutional.

Judges Colleen Conway-Cooney, Ann Dyke (both Democrats facing re-election in 2010), and Melody Stewart (a Democrat facing re-election in 2012) reversed a lower court's decision to uphold the law.

At the time the ruling was announced, Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair Ken Hanson told the media:

"The Supreme Court will reverse whatever reasoning they dreamed up."

That prediction is now one step closer to reality.

On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in Racine.

On January 8th Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin, City of Racine, two Racine Police officers, The City of Milwaukee and one Milwaukee Police Officer. In this lawsuit we challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on two
Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.

A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf

By Jeff Knox

Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago were an interesting show on March 2. Most of the Justices made their positions on applying the Second Amendment to the states – and what mechanism to use to do it – fairly clear from the outset. Most observers agree that the Court will declare that states must recognize a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

A secondary issue in this case is not just whether the Second Amendment should apply to the states, but also how it should get there. The 14th Amendment was written and ratified specifically for the purpose of, among other things, clarifying who is a citizen of the US and to make the rights of US citizenship applicable and enforceable in the states. That intent was thwarted however by a Supreme Court dominated by Justices with a strong state autonomy philosophy. In a ruling known as the Slaughter-House cases, the Court interpreted, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," to be limited in scope to only such rights or privileges as were bestowed by the Constitution, not those which pre-existed and were merely reiterated in that document.

In the 140 years since that egregious decision no Court has been willing to reverse their esteemed predecessors and open the Pandora's Box of "unenumerated rights" mentioned in the Constitution. Instead they created a novel construct around another clause of the 14th which says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." They have used this clause to somehow selectively "incorporate" virtually all of the Bill of Rights. Now they are poised to do the same with the Second Amendment.

By Gerard Valentino

A recent Toledo Blade editorial about pro-gun reform in Ohio reads like something out of the anti-gun playbook from 1999.

The anti-gun hit piece titled "Get a Handle on Guns" uses a series of misleading statements and outright lies to push a misinformed agenda.

By making the claim that guns and alcohol don't mix, the author tries to imply that legislators are advocating letting people carry guns while drunk.

Nothing can be further from the truth, and in a clear attempt at misdirection the editorial fails to mention that the proposal to allow concealed carry in establishments that serve alcohol won't make it legal to carry a gun while drinking. If the current law passes, it will still be illegal to possess a gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. By omitting such an important detail the Blade editorial board failed, yet again, to properly inform their readers of the effects of legislation they oppose.

Such a poorly veiled attempt to sway public opinion through a lie of omission shows that anti-gun zealots are prone to try just about anything to damage the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense.

By Chad D. Baus

Gun owners and other voters opposed to the resurgence of Mike DeWine in Ohio politics have been put on quite a roller-coaster ride in recent weeks.

On January 25, Ohio GOP chair Kevin DeWine worked to orchestrate an unopposed primary for his anti-gun cousin Mike by enticing pro-gun candidate Dave Yost to drop out of the race for Attorney General.

Less than two weeks later, on February 8, pro-gun Hardin County attorney Steve Christopher announced his own grassroots campaign, buoying the hopes of DeWine opponents. The late entry gave Christopher just ten days to collect the 1000 valid signatures necessary to get his name on the ballot.

Proof of just how much grassroots opposition Mike DeWine has came as volunteers responded to the call. The Christopher campaign announced that more than 2,700 signatures had been collected and turned in by the Feb. 18 filing deadline.

News came over this past weekend, however, that the roller coaster has taken another nasty turn.

Alan Gura, Counsel for McDonald in McDonald v. Chicago, explains the implications of a Supreme Court Decision in this case.