my name is roslyn brock -- roger pilon, and we are here to talk about a case to be argued before thehich is discussed in the second amendment, protect your right not simply as a member of the militia but you're right as an individual to keep and bear arms. it was the first time that the court had decided that case soul frontally, and we have the question before us now, does this right apply againsthe the applyller -- againsthe the statesller -- against the states. heller was argued against the district of columbia. did not until the ratification of the 14th amendment did the bill of rights applied against the states. then it became a question of what rights in the bill of rights were applicable against the states. the unfortunate event that followed five years after ratification was the slaughterhouse cases. in those cases, the court eviscerated the immunity's clause from the 14th amendment, section one. thereafter, the court would try to do under the less substantive due process clause what would be done under the substantive privileges or the immunity clause. it became a very vexin

if you would have asked 10 years ago, roger pilon, one of the key figures in the libertarian movementholarship that advances public policy here and across the country, how would this part of the agenda, if you will, be advanced? the second amendment or gun rights would not have been at the forefront of his mind, i would wager. and yet, this is how the wheel of history turned. to get to the actual case and how i think the argument will go tomorrow and some of the more specific issues, you have to go back to 61 a one -- v civics 101 or the constitution 101. turn to your pocket constitutions. the first six articles -- seven articles of the original constitution provide the governmental structure. there is a big argument about whether we even needed a bill of rights in the first place. why do we need this, given that we do not give the government power to infringe any of these important rights? if we start writing down what these are, what about disparaging these others? there was the compromise with an enumeration of certain rights. it says that these enumerated rights cannot disparage u

i refer to you a paper that roger pilon wrote. you can find that on the cato web site. that beyond the scope of our discussion here. now, okay, given what we've just gone through, the keep and bear arms, you look at what it meant. understood to be a privilege or immunity, and it clearly was. in part of the historical reasons that the 14th amendment was put in large part to reserve the individual liberties of unionist in the border and southern states. in part because it's deeply rooted. now the article that josh blackman and i wrote, "keeping pandora's box sealed" that's very similar to what judgedaughter min o'scandal did. but i think that's an appropriate method of seeing whether a particular right is covered by the privileges or immunities clause. it's quite clear if anything, all of us here we might disagree on some progressive or libertarian right is protected. but the right to keep and bear arms, it's so deeply rooted and described that there's no controversy that it would be protected. so to stay or to get more faithful to the constitution, and perhaps more impor

my name is roger pilon, i am the director of cato's center for constitutional studies which is your hosttoday. we are here to talk about a case that will be argued before the supreme court tomorrow morning, mcdonald v. city of chicago. and it is one might say the second act in the second amendment series that began a year ago in the heller decision in which the court for the first time decided that the right to keep and bear arms, which is discussed in the second amendment protects your right not simply as a member of the militia, but you're right as an individual to keep and bear arms. it was of the first time that the court had decided that case, or that matter quite so proudly. and we now have the question before us, does this right applies against the states? because heller was the case that was brought against the district of columbia, and so it involves only the federal government. the issue arises, of course, because the bill of rights was originally written and applied against the federal government, and not until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 did the bill of rig

constitution was through the right to keep and bear arms. 10 years ago, if you would have asked roger pilonrights would not be forefront in his mind, i would wager. yet, this is how the wheel of his returns. to get to the actual case and how i think the argument will go tomorrow and some of the more specific issues, you have to go back to 6101 or constitution 101 parent -- go back to civics 101 or constitution 101. before you even get to the bill of rights, the first six articles, the original constitution provides the governmental structure. there was a big argument between the federalist and the anti- federal it's over whether we need a bill of rights anyway -- anti-federalists over whether we need a bill of rights anyway. if we start writing down what these rights are, we will spare six others. that is why we had a compromise. in the ninth amendment, it says that these enumerated rights cannot disparage unenumerated rights. that is the structural version of the constitution. that was all well and good. the old lead to the federal government. until these several war, none of these rights