• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS will hear Chicago gun case arguments Tuesday!!

trevorthebusdriver

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

There was an article in the Seattle Times about this on Sunday.

In it, it says "...Seattle, Sacramento, and eight other major cities urged the court to uphold Chicago's gun law.", and ""It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to strip the states of their existing sovereignty to protect and regulate the right to bear arms and replace it with a federal standard," Seattle,Sacramento and other cities argued in their legal brief.""

I just want to know who or what organization is "representing" Seattle? Is it the mayor's office? Is he part of
M.A.I.G.? I don't see him listed on their web site...
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Orphan wrote:
I do not like the way the question was worded. Maybe its just me. 

Yeah, it is just you.

What is wrong with the question? It's a straight up, yes or no thing.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

sirpuma wrote:
http://www.cnn.com has a poll about half way down the page asking if SCOTUS should uphold the ban. So far it's mostly YES! :banghead::cuss:
Well, it IS CNN. :quirky

That a poll such as that hosted by CNN is even anywhere near 50/50 is a freeking miracle. :p
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
Orphan wrote:
I do not like the way the question was worded. Maybe its just me.

Yeah, it is just you.

What is wrong with the question? It's a straight up, yes or no thing.

Should the Supreme Court uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun ban?



It's a good item, probably even for people who don't know about the pending SCOTUS case.

It should differentiate nicely, even though single item surveys do have their validityproblems....
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/02/scotus.gun.control/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Tuesday's hourlong arguments focused mainly on the whether the Second Amendment should be "incorporated" or applied to state and local laws like most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
James Feldman, the attorney for the city of Chicago, told the justices that gun laws are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," Feldman said.
That argument brought skepticism from several conservatives on the bench.
"Your position is that a state or local government could completely ban all firearms?" Justice Samuel Alito asked Feldman.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's 2008 ruling over Washington's law applied this time, too. "The function of what was codified" in the Second Amendment, he said, "was to enforce the traditional right of the people to bear arms."
Chief Justice John Roberts downplayed concern of a sweeping ruling that might cripple cities from finding ways to prevent violence. The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," Roberts said.
A number of others, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, sought to limit the court's ruling striking the handgun ban in Washington. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes.
The Justice Department estimates as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.
"Chicago says that their gun law has saved hundreds, including -- and they have statistics -- lots of women in domestic cases," Breyer said. "When you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life."
Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.
One part ensures states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion and to homosexual sex.
But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case is whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should now be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when striking down a variety of state laws.
Alan Gura, the attorney for Chicago activist McDonald, has promoted a new reading of the clause in his lead role representing gun owners.
However, the current court appeared reluctant to revive that argument, seemingly content to apply the "due process" standard to Chicago's handgun law. The National Rifle Association supports that position.
The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars have said they think if the high court embraces this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, such as property rights and same-sex marriage.
Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The high court's conservative majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.
Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.
Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.
There have been limits. The high court repeatedly has refused to extend to states the Fifth Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

feldman sounds like a drunken sailor in a leaking life boat,,, drilling a hole in the bottom, to let the water out!:celebrate

BTW i WAS a drunken sailor a couple of times between oct 1971 thru 1975:cool:
and a drunken sailboater a couple of times between 1992 and 2000:shock:
 
Top