It has been nearly two years since the historic District of Columbia vs. Heller case, in which the core holding was that the Second Amendment is an individual right directly linked to the natural right of self defense.

This new challenge to unconstitutional restraints on that right is called McDonald vs. Chicago, and is drawing a great deal of attention for its many legal ramifications concerning the privileges and immunities clause and the due process clause, as well as the Second Amendment’s status as being “the only provision of the Bill of rights that declares its own essential link to liberty and a free society.” More than sixty parties have filed amicus curiae briefs(friend of the court) on this case, most in support of the petitioners Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, David Lawson, the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

At this point an introduction of Otis McDonald is in order, as it is his name that appears on the original lawsuit that was filed against the City of Chicago.

Here is an excellent article on Mr. McDonald, that provides excellent background information on his desire to own a handgun for self defense in his home, as well as why he was selected to be the face of this potentially landmark decision.
From the article:

To defend himself, McDonald says, he needs a handgun. So, in April of 2008, the retired maintenance engineer agreed to serve as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. Soon after, he walked into the Chicago Police Department and, as his attorneys had directed, applied for a .22-caliber Beretta pistol, setting the lawsuit into motion. When that case is argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, McDonald will become the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in the nation’s history.

The case begun with Mr. McDonald’s simple act of trying to purchase a handgun, was already set in motion in anticipation of the Heller case, as Chicago’s gun laws have long been considered the most restrictive in the country.

For more on Mr. McDonald, here is an article with a video, where you can judge for yourself his honesty and sincerity as a citizen petitioning for redress of the violation of his fundamental rights. There is also a UPI piece posted today.

As it goes with SCOTUS, nothing is assured, not even a definitive ruling, as they could return this case to a lower court for a new trial. I certainly hope not, for all our sakes, as the current structure of the nine judges is razor thin when it comes to constitutional originalism thinking.

If one has any doubts of where I stand on this issue, it is quite simple.
I Like Guns!