Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press weighs in on Chicago gun-ban case
By Linda Bentley | December 2, 2009
PHOENIX – As Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago is expected to be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2010, Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country, has joined 34 California district attorneys, eight Nevada district attorneys, former Graham County, Ariz. Sheriff Richard Mack, Arizona Citizens Defense League, along with police organizations and other persons and groups concerned with protecting the public safety benefits of citizens possessing firearms for self-defense.
Alan Korwin of Bloomfield Press says the goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, noting, “They are not currently required to do so,” which is the principle up for review in McDonald’s challenge to the city of Chicago’s gun ban.
According to Korwin, the courts have declared on a piecemeal basis that states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial, etc.
He said, “This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest profile case of its kind – the right to arms in the Second Amendment.”
While Chicago has banned this right, and insists it has the right to do so, Korwin says it leaves its citizens defenseless but does nothing to disarm hardened criminals who carry guns illegally at will.
Korwin explained, “The core issue is whether a state has a legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people. This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right.”
He quoted from an editorial in the anti-rights L.A. Times, which stated, “It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment … Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others … this is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”
Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California Attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.
In his opening statement summarizing arguments, Michel quotes the Heller (Washington D.C. gun ban case) majority’s final words: “[I]t is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
Michel continued, “Having saved the Second Amendment from that fate, it is equally true that it is not the role of this Court to deem Second Amendment rights less worthy of incorporation than other rights of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Accurately considered the ‘true palladium of liberty,’ the people’s right to keep and bear arms should be incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and rightfully take its place alongside all the other fundamental rights that the right to arms secures.”
Korwin, in announcing Bloomfield Press’ involvement in the amicus brief, also promoted a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to Senators and Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to citizens of the United States.”