Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun cases

[Ralph Wiggum]

The Supreme Court announced this morning it will hear a challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions that will determine if local handgun bans are legal.

Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.

Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.

By agreeing to take up the cases National Rifle Association vs. City of Chicago and McDonald vs. City of Chicago, the high court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. Those two cases challenge several Chicago gun laws, including the city's ban on handguns.

LINK

[thundley4]

We already know how Sotomayor will rule.She will side with the city/state.

[BlueStateSaint]

We already know how Sotomayor will rule.She will side with the city/state.

Let's remember who she replaced--Souter, one of the libs on the court.  Sotomayor's presence on the SCOTUS won't change the final outcome.  It'll be either 5-4 or 6-3 to strike down the laws, and handgun permits will be "shall-issue" across the US.

[DumbAss Tanker]

This interesting, since arguably the Second Amendment is really more broadly written than the First.  The First just says "Congress shall make no laws, etc." but does not limit State power, it has been applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and so more or less bootstrapped into granting rights that don't actually appear in the text.  The Second, on the other hand, clearly confers a right on the People, it does not just impose a limit on Federal legislative power.

[thundley4]

Let's remember who she replaced--Souter, one of the libs on the court.  Sotomayor's presence on the SCOTUS won't change the final outcome.  It'll be either 5-4 or 6-3 to strike down the laws, and handgun permits will be "shall-issue" across the US.

If "shall issue" becomes the law of the land, the states will find ways around it.  Illinois recently considered raising the fees for gun permits to several hundreds of dollars per year. Cities could easily do the same for local gun permits. Then there is the ammo situation, many ways there to circumvent any pro second amendment ruling from the USSC.

[Ralph Wiggum]

It's too bad that the case can't be heard and a decision rendered immediately, in order to be announced before the IOC decides on whether to award Chicago the 2016 Summer Olympics.

[Tess Anderson]

Is Ginsberg going to be in on this case? That's a sure grabber vote - all the gun control Chicago enacted has done little to stop the rampant crime there. But I think the IOC has already made (via bribes) their decision, Ralph.

[Mustang]

This has been said many times before, but I will say it again.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns are the reason why the crime rate is low in the south.
Everyone is a gun owner. Although they are starting to see gang activity in the south.

Making handguns illegal is not going to stop gangs from getting guns, it will stop citizens from protecting themselves.
Liberals are so stupid.

If you look at the statistics, communities where more citizens have guns, have lower crime rates...

[rich_t]

After striking down the D.C. ban, I don't see how the court could justify leaving the Chicago ban in place.

[Chris_]

After striking down the D.C. ban, I don't see how the court could justify leaving the Chicago ban in place.

The gun-control advocates are calling it a "state's rights issue". 

[rich_t]

The gun-control advocates are calling it a "state's rights issue". 

IMO, it's no more a State's rights issue than the 1st Amendment.

[Chris_]

IMO, it's no more a State's rights issue than the 1st Amendment.

As ludicrous as it sounds, that is the new argument that the Sarah Brady's of the country seem to be pinning their latest attacks on.

From Bad to Worse

[Thor]

IT IS a state's rights issue. Duluth, MN decided that they would ban handguns within the city. They were overturned by the State's pre-emption law up there. There are other states that won't issue carry permits to everyone that's not a criminal. Wisconsin and Iowa. California and Maryland are not "shall issue", either. I'm probably missing a few.

[DumbAss Tanker]

IT IS a state's rights issue. Duluth, MN decided that they would ban handguns within the city. They were overturned by the State's pre-emption law up there. There are other states that won't issue carry permits to everyone that's not a criminal. Wisconsin and Iowa. California and Maryland are not "shall issue", either. I'm probably missing a few.

"States rights" does not mean what it normally does in this context (State vs. Federal) it is about whether INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed in the BOR are within or beyond the right of the States to alter.  Considerable First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment case law says States can't do that, the question here is whether the Supremes will have the guts to take that to its proper logical conclusion with the Second after definitively ruling that it affords an individual right the same as the rest of the first eight Amendments.

[thundley4]

The left, in particular the ACLU believes that the "separation of church and state" applies to states and all other bodies of government. By that reasoning alone, the 2nd amendment should apply to all government entities.

[Deuce]

In my opinion it should be left to the states to decide what to allow.

When it comes to "arms," a line does have to be drawn somewhere. No reasonable person would argue in favor of individuals owning rocket launchers or an Abrams tank. How about a nuclear-tipped ICBM?

Since you need to draw a line somewhere as to what weaponry citizens are allowed to have, you should leave it to the states. After all, states are specifically granted all powers not given to the federal government.

[NHSparky]

In my opinion it should be left to the states to decide what to allow.

When it comes to "arms," a line does have to be drawn somewhere. No reasonable person would argue in favor of individuals owning rocket launchers or an Abrams tank. How about a nuclear-tipped ICBM?

Since you need to draw a line somewhere as to what weaponry citizens are allowed to have, you should leave it to the states. After all, states are specifically granted all powers not given to the federal government.

If you can afford and control it, why not?  Do a little research on your history and how during colonial days, citizens were allowed and even EXPECTED to keep heavy arms (mortars, etc.,) to defend the frontier in case of attack.  The whole idea of the 2A was so that the PEOPLE would retain the power, not the government, and that if government became too tyrannical to change via the ballot, then the bullet was still an option.

But what does it say when our police have military weapons, similar tactics, and the will to use them?  Obama's comment about a "civilian defense force at least as well-funded as our military" isn't all that far from the mark today.  At times, it seems almost a circumvention of Posse Commitatus.

And no, the states should NOT control whether or not I get to keep a gun, or what kind.  The Second Amendment pretty clearly states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?

[Deuce]

So that we all can be clear:

You're supporting the right for a private individual to own a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of leveling a city?

[dutch508]

So that we all can be clear:

You're supporting the right for a private individual to own a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of leveling a city?

you are one stupid mother ****er.

In the pure sense of the original amendment it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." any weapon would be allowed.

This country has chosen, over time, to change the meaning of this amendment to be:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/b]
except automatic weapons
except short barreled weapons
except large capacity magazines in weapons
except you need a licence
except if you live in some states
except etc etc etc.

 

[Deuce]

Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.

So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.

The world is not the same as it was 250 years ago. Black people, women, 18 year-olds, and people who don't own land get to vote. The Air Force is a separate entity from the Army. People can get from one end of this country to another in a few hours, but don't really have to because they can communicate over that distance instantly. Fire departments are a public institution, so you don't need to pay a fee to have your burning house saved. And weapons technology has advanced to the point where some weapons are so destructive that they cannot be trusted in the hands of citizens.

So yes, we've changed our minds when it comes to how much firepower you should carry. Would you prefer that decision be made in Washington by Zero or would you prefer your state legislature, who is at least somewhat answerable to you, decide?

[Chris_]

Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.

So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.

The world is not the same as it was 250 years ago. Black people, women, 18 year-olds, and people who don't own land get to vote. The Air Force is a separate entity from the Army. People can get from one end of this country to another in a few hours, but don't really have to because they can communicate over that distance instantly. Fire departments are a public institution, so you don't need to pay a fee to have your burning house saved. And weapons technology has advanced to the point where some weapons are so destructive that they cannot be trusted in the hands of citizens.

So yes, we've changed our minds when it comes to how much firepower you should carry. Would you prefer that decision be made in Washington by Zero or would you prefer your state legislature, who is at least somewhat answerable to you, decide?

The point, dipstick, is that the tenth amendment reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the states OR to the people individually.  The Second Amendment takes the authority to restrict ownership and proper use of arms by law-abiding^* otherwise peaceable citizens away from BOTH the Federal and State governments:

...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment wasn't established to facilitate and ease the responsibilities of the state: to think otherwise is to misunderstand the use of the term "militia" in the Founder's context.  The Second Amendment was put there, to ensure that the general body of peaceable citizenry - the militia, in the Founder's vocabulary - could have access to the same war-fighting hardware that their potentially oppressive government might.  Such traditions were not openly undermined until the first "Progressive" administrations of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, respectively.  They were not undermined by force of law until the 1930s and Franklin Roosevelt's administration.

[dutch508]

Ok, so I still am not seeing the point you're trying to make. I know that certain weapons are not allowed in some areas. Certain weapons are not allowed in ANY area. If we're going to be making distinctions between which weapons are allowed and which aren't, I'd rather that individual states make the choice rather than the federal government.

So which are you in favor of? Banning some weapons or banning NO weapons? You didn't give a straight answer, you just quoted the bill of rights.

banning NO weapons.


Shit, can you not read what I wrote?

As that great American Tim Wilson said:

"In 1776 the Government had muskets and cannon and the people had muskets and cannon.

"In 2009 the Government has Jets and tanks and the people have muskets and cannon."

[Chris_]

banning NO weapons.


Shit, can you not read what I wrote?

If you have to ask, sir...

[dutch508]

If you have to ask, sir...

Damm I HATE stupid assed retards.

[bkg]

Got into this argument with a lib a while ago. He's anti-gun, of course.

He went right to "should you be able to drive an Abram's tank on the road?" I couldn't stop .

He couldn't get the fact that owning a weapon - OF ANY KIND - infringes on NO ONE's rights. Period.

Use of that weapon in a way that infringes on someone elses rights is ALL that can be regulated. And it's already regulated by law (murder, theft, etc, etc), so there's no need to create laws dictating who can own what.

But we all know those laws are not about protecting people from other people. They are all about protecting gov't from the people.