Gun Rights and SCOTUS: Chicago will lose, America will win

imported post

Gun rights and SCOTUS: Chicago will lose and the nation will win

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation (which brought this case) and the National Rifle Association (which was allowed to present an argument) hit the long balls, while it is evident Chicago gun banners have none....

And a last (hopefully) word on the Starbucks manufactured controversy..

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d3-Gun-rights-before-SCOTUS-Chicago-will-lose-and-the-nation-will-win

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/yellv6v

imported post

[size= [quote]Justice Roberts: “That sounds an awful lot to me like the argument we heard in Heller on the losing side.” [/quote]
Sweet !!

imported post

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

Slightly off topic I suppose but:

It's been awhile since I've had my civics classhowever I seem to remember something about when a state (province, territory, etc.) is admitted into the United States that they have to agree to abide by the Constitution, with the 10th Amendment allowing the sovereignty to make laws that aren't already covered, i.e. defined by the Bill of Rights.

So I'm having a hard time figuring out why the 14th Amendment even needs to be applied here, because in essence it says "we really, really, really, mean it this time", not that the other Amendmentsdon't alreadyapply.

I'd appreciate anyone with more Constitutional knowledge thatmyself to reply.

imported post

hrlysef wrote:

Slightly off topic I suppose but:

It's been awhile since I've had my civics classhowever I seem to remember something about when a state (province, territory, etc.) is admitted into the United States that they have to agree to abide by the Constitution, with the 10th Amendment allowing the sovereignty to make laws that aren't already covered, i.e. defined by the Bill of Rights.

So I'm having a hard time figuring out why the 14th Amendment even needs to be applied here, because in essence it says "we really, really, really, mean it this time", not that the other Amendmentsdon't alreadyapply.

I'd appreciate anyone with more Constitutional knowledge thatmyself to reply.

Click to expand...

I am by no means a Constitutional scholar, but I know how to read and analyze. The 10th Amendment should be the kicker in this case, not the 14th. Why this is not the case, I don't know. The way I see it, the 10th Amendment says that any power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the states. That being said, the 2nd Amendment is a right granted to us by the Federal Constitution and therefore that right/power is reserved for the Federal Government to enforce, which therefore applies to every jurisdiction of the United States, even states like Illinois, New York, and Maryland who think they can do whatever they want. As a member of the Union they are bound to uphold the Constitution, which I believe was a requirement for the States to join the Union in the first place.

imported post

acmariner and hrlysef:

Alas, you are both mistaken.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to force states to recognize that freed blacks were now citizens and that they had all the rights of citizens, including RKBA, in order to defend themselves against attacks by model citizens like those in the KKK and other nocturnal civic organizations.

The Second Amendment-- which, incidentally, is not a right granted by the Federal Constitution...it doesn't "grant" us anything, it only affirms and protects the pre-existing right --like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, originally was a limit on Congress and the federal government.

Reconstruction taught us something about the South that a lot of people didn't understand before the war. They were fighting for states' rights much more than to defend slavery, and in the post war years, the states exercised their "rights" (authority) to adopt laws such as the notorious "black codes," which continued to allow the treatment of blacks as third- or fourth- class citizens, or worse.

Thus came the 14th Amendment, with its privileges and immunities, and due process clauses.

Citizenship rights delineated in the BoR were gradually incorporated to the states, that is, they were applied as limits on what states could do. This has been a slow process and for some reason, the 2A just never got incorporated through a decent legal action. That's about to change.

The Chicago case, brought by the SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION and ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, necessarily challenges the gun ban on 14th amendment grounds, because this is the amendment through which incorporation can occur.

I'm not an attorney, but I work for SAF through its ownership of GUN WEEK.

You can find out all about this case at www.chicagoguncase.com

imported post

hrlysef wrote:

Slightly off topic I suppose but:

It's been awhile since I've had my civics classhowever I seem to remember something about when a state (province, territory, etc.) is admitted into the United States that they have to agree to abide by the Constitution,

Click to expand...

I believed this too, and one reason why I feel although the bulk of the constitution deals with how the federal government was to be ran, that the Bill of rights are universal rights that applied to all within the Union that Federal, State or local municipalities could not infringe upon. But then of course Government and their lawyers interpret it differently. Hopefully soon with this case all the debate will be finally over and it won't matter any more.

imported post

Transcript of McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Oral Argument
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

hrlysef wrote:

Slightly off topic I suppose but:

It's been awhile since I've had my civics classhowever I seem to remember something about when a state (province, territory, etc.) is admitted into the United States that they have to agree to abide by the Constitution,

Click to expand...

I believed this too, and one reason why I feel although the bulk of the constitution deals with how the federal government was to be ran, that the Bill of rights are universal rights that applied to all within the Union that Federal, State or local municipalities could not infringe upon. But then of course Government and their lawyers interpret it differently. Hopefully soon with this case all the debate will be finally over and it won't matter any more.

Click to expand...

Sadly, an adverse ruling won't stop Mayor Daley and his ilk. Even after the Heller decision, WA, DC, still tried to make it impossible to comply with the rules they set up to "allow" residents to own operable guns. I believe Mr. Heller has had to file another legal action to challenge the new rules as DC is still trying to prevent the free exercise of RKBA. I don't expect Daley and the Chicago machine to behave any differently.

imported post

There ya go dashing my fantasy with reality again. LOL

imported post

Lammo wrote:

Sadly, an adverse ruling won't stop Mayor Daley and his ilk. Even after the Heller decision, WA, DC, still tried to make it impossible to comply with the rules they set up to "allow" residents to own operable guns. I believe Mr. Heller has had to file another legal action to challenge the new rules as DC is still trying to prevent the free exercise of RKBA. I don't expect Daley and the Chicago machine to behave any differently.

Click to expand...

+1


A victory at the SCOTUS for McDonald and the application of the second amendment to the states will truly be a monumental event. My hopes, however, are greatly tempered by what I consider to be a very likely ruling that will endow the state and local governments with a great deal of latituderegarding "reasonable" regulation of firearms.

Chicago will likely enact a crazy licensing scheme like New York City's. Licenses will be expensive, time consuming, of brief validity, and limited in geography. If they make it difficult enough, the net effect can be a virtual 'ban'. I predict that legal battles will ensue for years in these bastions of hopolophobia (hey, I finally used it!) as local governments defend their "reasonable" regulations.

The beautiful thing is that I still have the right to live in whatever state I choose. Boycotting Chicago hasn't cost me any sleep to date, and I'm certain that it won't any time soon.

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Reconstruction taught us something about the South that a lot of people didn't understand before the war. They were fighting for states' rights much more than to defend slavery, and in the post war years, the states exercised their "rights" (authority) to adopt laws such as the notorious "black codes," which continued to allow the treatment of blacks as third- or fourth- class citizens, or worse.

Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree with this assertion based on what I know of southern history, including the Confederate state constitution and the provisions it provided. As far as strengthening states rights goes, the CSA did little. As for keeping slaves as the law of the land... they sure nailed that and made it the law of the land.

As for the rest, you're right that pre-14th the bill of rights mean squat. This was decided in many cases, some of the most important (for our purposes) being Barron v. Baltimore, Presser v. Illinois, US v. Cruikshank, and the Slaughter-House cases. In fact, post Slaughter-House, even the 14th lacked meaning until incorporation via due process became the legal course of action, almost 50 years later.

imported post

The CSA did little to "strengthen" states rights, but to the South, the election of Lincoln...whom they considered a "black Republican"...meant the loss of states rights to federal government.

There were lots of emotional and political forces at work, but the genuine fear of federal intrusion on states authority...

imported post

Stryker wrote:

Lammo wrote:

Sadly, an adverse ruling won't stop Mayor Daley and his ilk. Even after the Heller decision, WA, DC, still tried to make it impossible to comply with the rules they set up to "allow" residents to own operable guns. I believe Mr. Heller has had to file another legal action to challenge the new rules as DC is still trying to prevent the free exercise of RKBA. I don't expect Daley and the Chicago machine to behave any differently.

Click to expand...

+1


A victory at the SCOTUS for McDonald and the application of the second amendment to the states will truly be a monumental event. My hopes, however, are greatly tempered by what I consider to be a very likely ruling that will endow the state and local governments with a great deal of latituderegarding "reasonable" regulation of firearms.

Chicago will likely enact a crazy licensing scheme like New York City's. Licenses will be expensive, time consuming, of brief validity, and limited in geography. If they make it difficult enough, the net effect can be a virtual 'ban'. I predict that legal battles will ensue for years in these bastions of hopolophobia (hey, I finally used it!) as local governments defend their "reasonable" regulations.

The beautiful thing is that I still have the right to live in whatever state I choose. Boycotting Chicago hasn't cost me any sleep to date, and I'm certain that it won't any time soon.

Click to expand...

+100

Took the letters right out of my fingers.

imported post

To keep things in perspective I remind myself that it basically took 50 years of eroding gun rights to just start reasserting our 2A protections in FL and it has been a hard fought further 20+ years just to get here. In other words, this is gonna take a while so be patient.

imported post

The transcript was a good read.

I will assume, out of respect, that some of the dumber questions and statements asked and made by the justices were proffered for the sake of argument, and that they are really not that dumb.