Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, will step down April 23 to accept the job of vice president with the HNTB engineering firm in Kansas City.

Rahn has been MoDOT director since September 2004, replacing Henry Hungerbeeler. When Rahn started MoDOT’s approval rating was poor. He often noted that he got a tremendous gift from Missouri voters shortly after he arrived, when Amendment 3 was approved. The vote shifted millions of dollars to MoDOT and required that bonds be sold to tackle billions in highway and bridge projects.

“MoDOT is a tremendous organization, filled with talented and dedicated employees. I feel very fortunate I have been allowed to associate with these exceptional people,” Rahn said in a release.

Rudy Farber, chairman of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, said it was “with a heavy heart” that Rahn’s resignation was being accepted. He credited Rahn with helping MoDOT re-establishing its reputation with the public.

“His innovative and highly effective leadership was exactly what was needed to handle the challenges MoDOT faced when he became director,” Farber said.

Rahn recently announced a plan to reduce MoDOT’s headcount by attrition. He also has been vocal in warning Missourians that transportation funding was going to “fall off a cliff” starting this fiscal year, forcing MoDOT to focus on maintenance and curtail many of the system improvements that are needed.

It may be months before Otis McDonald knows whether his right to keep a handgun in his home can be negated by the city of Chicago.

McDonald’s case was heard Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court today.  The decision in McDonald vs Chicago could come as late as June.

Obviously, this case will be closely watched by gun rights advocates and gun control advocates. The exact wording of the ruling, however, will affect everyone.

In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs the District of Columbia, that a handgun ban in the nation’s capital was unconstitutional. Lots of people expected a rapid crumbling of similar gun bans in other cities, but due to the unique status of D.C. — it is a national entity rather than a state — those changes never occurred.

With McDonald vs Chicago the Supreme Court may well rule 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment with regard to all states and cities.

The bigger question is whether the high court will use a portion of the 14th Amendment dealing with due process or one involving privileges or immunities.The legal debate is confusing stuff, but the Illinois Statehouse News staff interviewed Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University, who outlined the differences.

Lund said if the due process clause is invoked, it will affect gun control, “but nothing else.” If the privileges and immunities clause is invoked it could strike down lots of state and local government controls.

It will be a surprise if the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 5-4 edge, do not rule that 78-year-old Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents can be denied their 2nd Amendment rights by that city. McDonald, a retired maintenance engineer, is black and argues that he needs a handgun to protect himself from burglars who might break into his home.

Some have argued that failure to uphold McDonald’s rights would be considered an endorsement of “Constitution-free zones” within the United States. Mayor Richard Daley, however, does not think the federal government should be able to meddle in how Chicago protects its citizens.

Note that Daley is surrounded by armed bodyguards, so his own protection is not in question.