"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two are a law firm and three or more are a Congress." John Adams

Well, folks, 2010 is officially on the upside and we are in March already. Time, for me, is more fleeting each day as I head to the HHG. At this point, the media is making a big stink about the Supremes and their upcoming decision concerning the 2nd Amendment and its application to local jurisdiction. Hmmm? What could possibly be so hard?

Our Constitutional founders were just as divided on issues in their day as we today. Federalists and Anti-federalists were the two opposing viewpoints then; liberals and conservatives seem to be the monikers today. Nonetheless, the issues were still debated. Gun control during the late 18th century did exist. The aristocracy wished to keep arms out of the hands of their slaves to minimize revolt. They imagined all kinds of blood-thirsty mayhem should the "slaves" have guns. Ironically, most gun control laws to arise after the Civil War were in the South and geared toward preventing "people of color" owning guns. Of course, many former slaves simply went west where freedom abounded. Even there, the same mindset prevailed when it came to the races and guns. I won't dwell on the Dred Scott decision...too long for this blog.

My point is: most people that want strict gun control want to keep access to guns and private gun ownership out of the hands of certain classes of society. Of course, it makes sense that there are certain individuals through nature or choice should not be allowed to possess arms. The criminally insane, clinically depressed, felons, domestic abusers, child molesters, enemies of the US, etc. I don't know of any true patriot that would dispute that.

The impending decision before the Supremes is whether the city of Chicago has the Constitutional power to deny all citizens the right to bear arms (handguns) under the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The lawsuit filed by Chicago citizens seeks to overturn the out-right ban on handguns such as happened in Washington D.C. If the Supremes are truly impartial, they must follow case law and rule against the Chicago ban and force them to institute some kind of system which will, at minimum, allow Chicago residents to possess arms in their homes for protection of their property and lives. This only makes sense. Why it has taken so long for this to come to litigation testifies to the corruption in the judicial system in that state.

Keep a watchful eye on this, my friends, I think it is the beginning of bigger things to come. If Chicago wins, you lose.