Kagan participated in and whitewashed unethical ghostwriting and plagiarizing campaigns while Dean of Harvard Law School, as well as a cover up, and inserted her own false information into a report from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) concerning partial birth abortions, that changed the entire view on the practice.

About her decision to vote for Kagan’s appointment, Sen. Collins said she has, “the intellect, experience, temperament and integrity” to serve as Supreme Court Justice. Yesterday, the other Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, said she too would vote to confirm Kagan and gave similar reasons for that decision saying, “with the strong intellect, respect for the rule of law, and understanding of the important but limited role of the Supreme Court that I believe is required.”

As with anyone eager to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice, we must question even their ability to make rational judgments on others character. Who could look at Kagan’s record and believe she was a person of “integrity” or “respect for the law”, when she has thumbed her nose at the law and worked to cover it up.

Have our own ethics and moral guidelines become so clouded that actions such as those of Elena Kagan should be overlooked? That is certainly one conclusion I would have to make, unless, of course, Snowe and Collins are no different than the other 98 U.S. Senators who fail at their jobs miserably and haven’t spent anytime at all gathering facts about Elena Kagan.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions yesterday made comments attacking Kagan’s nomination saying it would be a “dangerous” appointment. The video (below) is 3:21 long and not once does Sen. Sessions refer to any specific reasons she would be a “dangerous” appointment other than he thinks she is cast in the mold of Barack Obama and specifically hand selected by the President for that purpose. He may be right but why not take the opportunity while addressing the rest of the Senate and specifically lay out all the unethical and law breaking reasons she would be a “dangerous” appointment? Yet, another example of a U.S. Senator failing his constituency by not speaking out with all the facts.

What’s to hide?

Tom Remington

In the post of that story, I included videos and links to places readers could get more information. After the post, I also posted copies of the story at the Conservative Zone and Candid Conservatives. I followed this up with emailings – many to prominent conservative bloggers and several activists in my address book. I asked everyone to spread the word, hand out the links and call their own senators and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to alert them.

I was immediately elated and just as quickly disappointed when I read that the Judiciary Committee vote had been delayed a week. The momentary elation came when, for a fleeting nanosecond, I thought perhaps it was because of this revelation. Not so. The delay was the result of Senate Republicans seeking answers to questions concerning how Kagan would conduct herself in hearings concerning Obamacare, in which she had acted as legal council for Obama as Solicitor General.

I learned only moments ago from an email and from the “Authorskeptics” blog, that members of the Republican Party “are looking into the indications that Elena Kagan was involved in whitewash of the Larry Tribe ghostwriting scandal and — of particular concern — that she involved herself in an investigation of the charges that Tribe used ghostwriters to produce a book on which Tribe took sole credit as author ….”

There is hope. What will become of this “looking into”, only time will tell. It is important for readers to continue sending emails and making telephone calls. These senators need to know that we the people are on top of this and will settle for nothing less than the complete and accurate vetting of candidates they are required to do.

I want to personally thank everyone who took the time to notify a friend or family member, to send an email or make a phone call. I would like to ask that all of you who did, to follow that up and let them know their effort has at least awoken some in the Senate and they are looking into this. Encourage them to continue to pass the word.

I would also encourage readers to follow AuthorSkeptics for updates and other information on this as well.

Tom Remington

The city of Chicago threw together a gun ordinance after McDonald v. Chicago, which is nothing more than an in-your-face scoffing of the United States Supreme Court, much the same way that Washington, D.C. did after District of Columbia v. Heller. Why wouldn’t Chicago do similar things? D.C. has not really been tested as to the Constitutionality of their restrictive gun laws. After all, District of Columbia v. Heller only ruled that the District’s gun ban was unconstitutional. It did not define what can and cannot be used for gun restrictions.

Chicago’s continued gun ban ordinance – because that’s what it is – requires everyone to register their guns. The city has 120 days in order to process an application (in six months that is reduced to 45 days). A person cannot purchase and register more than one gun every 30 days and there will be restrictions of the type of guns allowed. But this “gray” area concerns me.

Guns deemed “unsafe” because of safety recalls or poor quality can’t be registered.

A safety recall on guns might be a bit more clear cut but who is going to make the determination that a gun is “poor quality”? By many people’s standards, there are a lot of “poor quality” guns readily available to purchase. This reeks of manipulation. Also don’t be fooled by this statement. If a gun cannot be “registered” it cannot be purchased and possessed within the city.

So, for those living in Chicago, once you’ve jumped through the hoops of registering your firearm, which will take up to 6 months to do, you can keep it in your house but not be allowed to have it outside, including on your porch or in your garage.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think the McDonald v. Chicago ruling provides that states cannot create any gun laws that exceed those of the Federal Government? Obama and his administration are suing the state of Arizona claiming that Arizona does not have the authority to eclipse the immigration laws of the Federal Government. Does this also mean that Illinois and specifically the city of Chicago, doesn’t have the authority to transcend Federal gun laws?

If and when this all gets sorted out, will it be determined that the Federal Government determines what gun laws will exist? And will this open the door for Federal Government to intrude further into our inalienable rights and craft stricter gun laws?

How does this all align with those states pushing back against the Federal Government in attempts to reaffirm state sovereignty?

President Barack Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and now Solicitor General under Obama, to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I have written a few articles on Kagan’s nomination mostly in regard to Second Amendment issues. Find those here, here, here, and here, here.

Like with any Supreme Court nominee, there is more to the person than simply how they stand on Second Amendment. Isn’t it just as important to know about a person’s character, maybe even to know whether they find little problem with lying, cheating and stealing?

A reader tipped me off the other day to events that have been taking place for some time at Harvard Law School, especially during the time that Elena Kagan was the Dean. It appears there is nothing short of an epidemic (at least by using Barack Obama’s standards for what entails an epidemic) of plagiarism by some of Harvard Law’s well-known associates – Alan Dershowitz, Charles Ogletree and Laurence Tribe.

The history is long and sordid dating back several years. You can find much information about this from the links given to me by a reader who claims to have been following this story for several years and puzzles over why nobody is talking about this during the Kagan hearings. The Harvard Plagiarism Archive is a good place to start and the below video I’ve posted can be found at the Harvard Parody.

Personally I have little, if anything, at stake if Harvard Law School wants to pump out liars, cheaters and stealers. They only stand to ruin their name and reputation, resulting a continued “dumbing down”, if you will, of the quality of student wanting to attend. This of course will lead to nowhere in a hurry. However, all Americans have a stake in this because as Dean of Harvard Law School, according to documents provided in these links, Elena Kagan was aware of copying and pasting of other scholars’ work into books and other documents claimed by Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe and essentially did nothing about it. Even more troubling is that Kagan, as Dean, investigated accusations against Laurence Tribe about his using students to ghostwrite and plagiarizing for his book and other works. A real conflict of interest exists here in that Kagan used to ghostwrite for Tribe.

Plagiarism is a serious offense. Caught in the act, a student will be bounced out on their ear but evidently it is an acceptable practice at Harvard Law School for professors and staff; at least under Kagan’s watch. The ramifications of stealing another person’s scholarship goes far beyond the obvious dishonesty and threatens the very foundation of academic scholarship, much as Climategate has rattled and cracked the scientific world leaving millions not knowing who to believe or trust.

I have to concur with the person who tipped me off about this Harvard plagiarism affair and ask much the same question: Why isn’t this being discussed during the Kagan nomination process? This knowledge challenges the very core of a person’s character; the very ethos no American should desire to see of a person sitting on the highest court in this land.

Surely members of the Senate must be aware of this……aren’t they? Do they want to know? How deeply tied are these Senators to Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe? Is this all just Washington “business as usual/politics as usual”?

For Elena Kagan, as dean of any college, to show such disregard for obvious plagiarism is an abomination but to take it upon herself to investigate the person she used to ghostwrite for, simply reeks of dishonesty and a cover-up or better yet a good, old-fashioned Washington, D.C. whitewash.

The video that follows is a parody of the entire Harvard plagiarism fiasco. It is about 30 minutes long and covers an array of plagiarism and ghostwriting accusations, who knew about them and when, and what if anything was done about them. It’s all quite disgusting to be honest.

While Kagan’s dishonesty and track record on Second Amendment issues tells me this woman should never sit on any court and should never have been allowed to hold the position as Solicitor General, the character of this woman shown in this information, degrades her to that of a common criminal, one who can’t excel in life without the assistance of lying, cheating and stealing and covering it up for herself and others.

Shame on the Senate for not getting to the bottom of this in their vetting process. If you think this information is important in selecting a Justice to sit on the Supreme Court, pass it on to everyone you know and most importantly, send it to your Senator.

Tom Remington

Michelle Malkin declares the McDonald ruling “good news, bad news”. The good news of course being the Supreme Court ruling against the Chicago gun ban. Malkin states that with the NRA withholding a position of opposition against anti-gun Kagan, the bad news and surely it is. Why the hesitation? Kagan clearly is not a supporter of gun rights. Isn’t the NRA’s mission to promote and protect Second Amendment rights?

The NRA never opposed the nomination of now Justice Sotomayor until after members of the NRA Board and heads of state NRA affiliates signed and mailed a letter opposing Sotomayor to NRA management. As if there was some question about Sotomayor’s position on gun rights, that was clarified yesterday in her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago.

Some point out that Kagan’s known work reveals an even greater support for strict gun control and yet we still see the NRA not officially opposing her nomination. Instead they have issued a public position stating they are “carefully reviewing” Kagan’s record and working with key Senators to make sure Kagan is “aggressively questioned”.

We see from what is found in the Malkin piece that the NRA management prohibited any NRA Board members from testifying or coming out publicly in opposition to Kagan. This is troubling and seems to mimic the same tactics this Obama administration uses in censoring anyone in opposition to his positions.

While Americans for the preservation of gun rights applaud any victory in court that supports the Constitution, we should not be willing to achieve those victories by compromising the very principles for which the Constitution itself was founded. When political wrangling, which is the norm in Washington, becomes a part of the NRA’s policies, it can only be expected that something will be given up in order to get.

Which brings me to wondering what the NRA gave up in order to get themselves an exemption in the DISCLOSE Act? Was it that they could have the exemption if they promised not to oppose the Kagan nomination? Who knows but the reality is that when you play these games, questions remain and speculation takes over.

Tom Remington

We learned yesterday that Kagan was “not sympathetic” to one man fighting for his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. According to Klukowski, as Solicitor General, Kagan did not seek oral argument time or even file a brief in the recent case of McDonald v. Chicago.

As Klukowski points out, Kagan should have at least filed a brief in this case as the crux of the entire appeal is to whether or not the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporates the Second Amendment, an obvious federal issue. Instead, she remained silent. Was this a blatant attempt to stay “off record” on gun rights as Obama and Kagan had previously conspired to sterilize her record as much as possible so she could more easily fill a vacant seat on the Court? It would appear as such.

Also remember that Kagan was part of the Bill Clinton Administration that destroyed our Second Amendment rights through the Assault Weapons Ban in which they created lists of guns to ban that stretched even the wildest of imaginations as to what might constitute an “assault” weapon.

It is Klukowski’s contention that Obama intends to attack the Second Amendment right and destroy it through building a Supreme Court comprised of anti gun justices who will approve any kind of ban of guns. He was able to place Sotomayor there and we are all quite familiar with her past record on gun rights cases.

However, according to Bloomberg, her comments on District of Columbia v. Heller, were:

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,”

When people ask why it is that people question the personal views of nominated judges on subjects such as Second Amendment, or Roe v. Wade, this is why. The role of a law clerk, in this case what Kagan was doing in her job under Justice Marshall when she made her comment, is to advise the judge, supposedly based on law, about a ruling. When we hear of a clerk making reference that she is “not sympathetic” about an American citizen’s concern for the protection of his Constitutional rights, it now becomes extremely important as to whether this person should be in a position to hand down rulings. Can we be comfortable believing that she is interpreting the law or being sympathetic or unsympathetic?

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: Member of the Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out about President Barack Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mychal Massie: “After all of the division he has foisted upon America in his short tenure, Obama had a perfect opportunity to show he could be conciliatory and moderate. With the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama failed miserably. Obama condemned his nominee, his colleagues in Congress and himself to a long, hot and bitter summer in which the full radicalism of his agenda will be on full display. Obama is rapidly running out of opportunities to convince the American people that his presidential campaign was not simply a collection of hot air and empty promises.” (Mychal Massie is chairman of Project 21, a syndicated columnist whose work appears at WorldNetDaily, and a former talk show host and businessman.)

Horace Cooper: “Observers say Kagan is meant to be an ‘intellectual counterweight’ to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. Intellectual counterweight? She’d be better described as marginal and outside the mainstream. In the signature case she led as dean of Harvard’s law school — preventing military recruiters on her campus — she not only lost, but she lost big. Not one justice took her side. Is Kagan truly the best candidate Obama could find, or the one most palatable to his far-left base?” (Horace Cooper, a member of Project 21 and an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, is a former visiting professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

R. Dozier Gray: “As painful as it is for me to accept his choice, President Obama does have the constitutional right to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court. And, with this Senate, he has a reasonable expectation that Elena Kagan will be confirmed. But he should not consider it a certainty. Obama and Harry Reid should not try to game the process as we’ve seen tried so often in this Congress. Obama voted against Samuel Alito when he was in the Senate, so he should naturally be willing to afford each senator that same privilege of advice and consent he once enjoyed.” (R. Dozier Gray is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a combat veteran.)

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

“My name is Jim Beers and I am a treatyphobe.”

I grew up in the period of wildlife abundance in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the first time I hunted with my Dad, the dream of spending my life managing and preserving the use and cultural heritage provided by US fish and wildlife was always in my mind.

When I studied wildlife management in college and when I worked for the Utah Fish and Game and then the US Fish and Wildlife Service after a stint in the Navy; fish and wildlife management and use, like American freedoms and the American way of life were still intact. Today, fish and wildlife management and use, like American government, American freedoms, American culture and traditions, and American society are in tatters and on the verge of disappearance.

I lay much of the blame for this decline on the sordid manipulation of the Treaty powers contained in the US Constitution by persons with hidden agendas. That is not to say that this power is wrongly described therein, it is to say that this power as it has evolved in the past century has eroded the strong foundation of Constitutional government and fish and wildlife use and management as we knew it.

I am “taking pen to paper” here because yesterday I wrote about the potential for the current Administration (Obama et al) and the current US Senate (Reid et al) to cynically craft and line up a few nations to sign a UN Treaty “On Small Arms and Ammunition” that, when signed by the President (of the US) and ratified by 2/3 of the Senators “present” whenever old Harry (Reid) deigns to ask for a vote, automatically becomes “the Law of the land” per the Constitution. I further speculated that it would mean the inevitable demise of our 2nd Amendment rights.

A lawyer that I respect essentially responded that such a scenario was unlikely because such a treaty would not and could not change the Constitution and therefore would be challenged and found to be unable to change our rights. I was crestfallen but I accept that lawyerly advice.

Therefore I have joined Treatyphobics Anonymous and as my first step in overcoming my phobia about Treaties will try to explain my formerly inexplicable fear of Treaties so that I might return to societal confidence in the Treaty-making authority of federal leaders.

When I went to work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1960’s I unknowingly entered into an era of societal turbulence and change that was not only reflected in fish and wildlife programs but indeed hijacked those programs and the powers they contained. I can only say this now, because while I was immersed in it until fired in 1999, it was truly like the old saw of not being able “to see the forest for the trees”. Allow me to explain.

US fish and wildlife were unmanaged and freely used until the late 1800’s. In 1896, new state laws about wildlife were upheld by the Supreme Court in GEER v. Connecticut wherein it was held that states “owned” all the fish and wildlife within their borders. This was the cornerstone that began the increased management and sustainable use of fish and wildlife by accountable (to state resident voters) State, not federal, politicians and managers.

In 1917, the federal government ratified a TREATY with Canada to protect about 200 species of birds (nearly all migratory game birds and songbirds) that Migrated between these two nations. The authority for the federal government to subsequently claim ALL authority over all of these named birds was upheld by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Missouri in 1920. Ray Holland was one of my (as a young duck hunter) early heroes and to this day I have a photograph of him standing, cigar in hand, on the Mall in DC in the early 1920’s. Federal authority for years protected and increased those migratory birds for uses from hunting and bird watching to protection of agricultural crops and wetlands. Today I would argue that they no longer do that, if anyone would care to debate the point.

Let’s fast forward to my 32 years with the USFWS. As societal turbulence (anti-war, drugs, “free”-love, etc.) shook the land, federal fish and wildlife management and use was subverted and perverted into something 180 degrees out of synch with American traditions and cultures. Treaty manipulation became a hidden factor in this perversion.

Consider two federal laws that have changed our world dramatically, The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1. An Endangered Species Act passed Congress in 1969 but it was found to have “no teeth’. So a UN Convention was concocted and ratified on “International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” (“Small Arms Treaty” anyone?) in 1973. That same year (wow, did they do that quickly) the federal government enacted the Endangered Species Act we all came to know and (only a few of us) love.

2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was introduced in 1976 by an Arkansas Senator (funny how those guys and gals keep popping up in these scenarios about subverting US society) who joked that “the best thing about this law (he was fishing for “environmental” votes at the time) was that there wasn’t one of them Marine Mammals within 500 miles of Arkansas”. It followed:

1931/49 – Whaling Convention Act and amendments.

1957 – Fur Seal (Alaska) Act

1958 – Convention on “Living Resources of the High Seas”.

1970 – 8 Species of Whales declared “Endangered”.

1972 – A Treaty on Seals.

1973 – A Treaty on Polar Bears. (As I write this, the paper reports that the US introduced a ban on the international trade by Canadian natives of polar bear skins, teeth, and claws from their own robust and sustainably-managed and hunted polar bear populations. Fortunately, this political trashing of the rural and native people of our strongest ally and neighbor was defeated by a surprisingly erudite UN vote.)

Now remember that I am ignoring a whole bunch of simultaneously nefarious stuff involving other fish and wildlife things during these years. For instance:

- Manipulating a Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and new Treaties with Japan and Russia to quietly add new “federally protected” birds that had been specifically excluded like cormorants (that soon overran hatcheries and fish farms) and pelicans (that soon became “Endangered” and now overrun docks) and hawks and owls that, like protected wolves and grizzly bears, soon grew in numbers and destruction impacts on other birds and desired wildlife.

- Closing public lands to access and management (Wilderness Act of 1964).

- Wild Horse and Burro Act (1971) giving federal protection to such destructive and overpopulated animals.

- Gradual reorientation of federal lands into being lands OUTSIDE state and local authority and lands oriented to “Native Ecosystems” instead of the purposes for which they were purchased.

- Closure of public lands to uses (and management tools) like logging and grazing.

- Proliferating designations by Executive Orders and bureaucratic regulations to close public land from energy access and development to closing more access with Roadless Areas, the destruction of trails, nuisance regulations, draconian law enforcement, and entry fees.

Now remember, what I am about to say comes from someone that is not a lawyer. If I had a buck for every time I heard, in my federal career, that “we” had authority over private property and state governments because “we” (us federal guys, not you out there or any of those state “cowboy legislatures” or redneck farmers) had treaties and the laws implementing them on “our” side, well I would be fishing off New Zealand or bird shooting in Argentina (it is early fall there) right now. Government Solicitors and those bureaucrats that were promoted to ever-higher responsibilities (“responsive to management skills and abilities” types) were constantly maneuvering with New Age Lawyers and their environmental/animal rights clients and supporters to “interpret” the laws and treaties in supportive (of government expansion) ways. They also worked hard to identify and “suggest” new laws and regulations to “save” more and to “plug loopholes” that frustrated federal power growth. Writing suggested Treaty language and getting court findings to serve as precedents (the “right” court at the “right” time) and then writing regulations that served the original but mostly unnoticed federal/ “New Age” supporters agendas was what federal employees and their advisors were paid and rewarded to do in those days.

Those 2 federal laws (ESA & MMPA) created a federal and public mindset, and a whole trail and flow of increasingly un-American laws and regulations. This soon did two things:

1. Established the now-acceptable practice that the federal government could “Take” private property use and value from private owners for whatever reason it contrives, like “Critical Habitat”, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. This broke the back as far as federal advocates were concerned of that old, out-dated concept about “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” that those old rich guys (Our Founding Fathers) wrote somewhere (the US Constitution, 5th Amendment). Who wouldn’t “take” all they could if there was no cost? Who could afford to “take” all the federal government has “taken” in the past 40 years if they had to pay for it?

2. Established the current belief that states no longer “owned” any fish or wildlife except what the feds have left alone thus far.

Once we accepted these two principles and their future place in our laws, our fate was and is sealed.

When federal bureaucrats and politicians saw that Treaties could give them absolute power over everything from private property to the authority and jurisdiction of states – THEIR FUTURE GROWTH AND MARCH TO ABSOLUTE POWER WAS ASSURED. No court would ever again uphold a citizen defending private property (be it dog, farm, chicken, or home.) No state would ever again be able to stop federal orders that closed public lands in a state or denied gun rights on federal lands in the state or stopped logging or farming or grazing on public and private lands within a state. The rest was academic:

- Federal lands, budgets, regulations, and power have grown dramatically over the past 40 years.

- State rights have all but disappeared.

- State employees have become mere extensions of federal policies, receivers of federal welfare (excuse me grants and assistance) and enemies of state residents.

- Federally protected overpopulations of Seals choke the mouth of the Pacific NW Rivers eating enormous amounts of salmon (thereby sustaining their overpopulation) while the same federal government protecting them tears down dams, shuts down irrigation districts, reduces human water supplies and power generation, and closes vast ocean areas to fishermen; all to “save salmon”.

- Federally protected and federally dispersed wolves spread disease, danger, and carnage in federally-designated states on both public and private property and thereby destroy rural culture, rural economies, and rural communities where federal lands and the destruction of animal (wild and domestic) husbandry and use is being federally driven to make way for ever-growing federal land enclaves.

- Marine Mammals that never leave state waters and were heretofore under state authority like manatee and sea otters are, like growing lists of other wild resident and therefore formerly state-controlled animals like sage grouse, pupfish, suckers, wolves, etc. placed under absolute and never-ending federal jurisdiction (every State move must be “approved by federal authorities” once such jurisdiction is proclaimed). This set the groundwork for the current cry for “federal laws” to “restore native ecosystems” and “eliminate invasive species” (what else is there given the nonsensical definitions of these “rubbery” concepts?)

A century of American Progressive challenges to the “ownership of the commons”, an ancient concept about whether “The King” or “The People” (now where have I heard that last term before?) owned “public” land and the fish and wildlife inhabiting it has become intertwined, like mating snakes with a century of “progressive” beliefs and actions about the “smart” few governing the “ignorant” (scientifically-challenged?) many.

Those 2 results of Treaties (ESA & MMPA) being (rightly or wrongly assumed by federal bureaucrats and their political bosses and an “evolving Supreme Court”) justification for laws demolishing the Constitution and leaving only the power of a majority vote (i.e. no “Rights” just power) have much to do with the state of America today.

As an old bureaucrat I may be way off base about how Treaties are supposed to work but I know what I saw and it is like a B-25 tail gunner walking through Dresden in1946: it ain’t pretty and you wonder how it all happened and how it ever went this far.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I will come to any more of these meetings. All this baring your soul stuff is too stressful on an old-timer.

Jim Beers

Photo from fOTOGLIF

District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that citizens have a right to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. The ruling made it clear that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. What didn’t get decided in Heller was what, if any, restrictions on those guaranteed rights were allowable. It appears McDonald will not tell us that either.

There is no clear cut established “gun right”. It is not defined. The only thing that has shaped gun rights or gun restrictions, has been state and local laws through our jurisprudence. As we have seen, some of those restrictions have gone so far as to deny certain citizens the right to possess a gun at all, as was the case in Heller, in the District of Columbia and McDonald, in Chicago.

If SCOTUS should rule to force Chicago to abide by the Second Amendment through the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the question becomes, how much? Will the court offer any ruling as to where Chicago should begin?

In oral arguments, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the NRA, suggested that there should be a “carry over” of Second Amendment laws along with the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.

Personally, I believe the Court will react much the same way it did in Heller. They will make a ruling of whether Second Amendment rights extend to the states and then leave it up to the courts to hammer out what will then become “reasonable” restrictions on guns.

After Heller, even though the High Court ruled that a ban on gun ownership was unconstitutional, the District of Columbia did not make it easy for anyone to get a gun and register it. I foresee the same events in McDonald.

Tom Remington