Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

  1. #31
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    There is so much gun violence in the city that they are trying anything. There are places in the city where they say you can hear gunshots almost hourly. This for the city of Chicago is a big thumbs up. The NRA can go to hell on this one. You don't need handguns and assault weapons in this city. There is nothing here to hunt except people so The NRA needs to back off on this.
    Umm if this ban has been in for a while then talking about its wonderful effect on gun violence is a bit silly isn't it? It is just about disarming the law abiding citizen.

    I think handguns would be useful for defence in a city and urbanites( though they probably are often liberal latte drinkers) have the same right to resistance to tyranny of us hardy, countryfolk.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 06-04-09 at 01:52 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.com

    Looks like the 2nd amendment is on its way to incorpration against actions by the states.

    Its about time.
    SCOTUS doesn't apply to states?

    w00t ban abortion right now!

  3. #33
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Umm if this ban has been in for a while then talking about its wonderful effect on gun violence is a bit silly isn't it? It is just about disarming the law abiding citizen.

    I think handguns would be useful for defence in a city and urbanites( though they probably are often liberal latte drinkers) have the same right to resistance to tyranny of us hardy, countryfolk.
    They are trying also to get the guns out of homes that get stolen and wind up in the streets. This city is a war zone in certain areas. There are no places to hunt in Chicago. There are no shooting ranges here. The only shooting that gets done is in the streets. They need to do something here.

    I can understand that people don't want to give up there guns and believe they have the 2nd amendment to protect that right. This city is not a place to stand for tha.
    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
    Life member NY city Fisting Club!
    I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.

  4. #34
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    There is so much gun violence in the city that they are trying anything. There are places in the city where they say you can hear gunshots almost hourly. This for the city of Chicago is a big thumbs up. The NRA can go to hell on this one. You don't need handguns and assault weapons in this city. There is nothing here to hunt except people so The NRA needs to back off on this.
    I think a good start to this would not be to disarm the public but rather make it a new law that being in any gang that has a record of violent acts is now considered a terrorist organization and treated as such.

    Get rid of gangs and you will see a HUGE drop in gun violence.

  5. #35
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    They are trying also to get the guns out of homes that get stolen and wind up in the streets. This city is a war zone in certain areas. There are no places to hunt in Chicago. There are no shooting ranges here. The only shooting that gets done is in the streets. They need to do something here.
    These guns are illegal hence the idea that the ban is to stop the violence that is happening under it makes no sense.

    I can understand that people don't want to give up there guns and believe they have the 2nd amendment to protect that right. This city is not a place to stand for tha.
    I respectfully disagree. Even latte drinking liberals deserve the right to protect themselves and resist tyranny.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    They are trying also to get the guns out of homes that get stolen and wind up in the streets. This city is a war zone in certain areas. There are no places to hunt in Chicago. There are no shooting ranges here. The only shooting that gets done is in the streets. They need to do something here.

    I can understand that people don't want to give up there guns and believe they have the 2nd amendment to protect that right. This city is not a place to stand for tha.
    Most stolen guns used in crimes come from halfway across the country. If every legal gun owner in Chi got rid of their guns tomorrow, it would barely (if at all) make a dent in the number of illegal guns use in crimes.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The 14th didn't automatically bind the states. It took centuries to selectively incorporate the bill of rights...
    But wouldn't you agree this failure to bind and incorporate was largely the consequence of institutionalized bigotry?

    ...and the court has refused to incorporate certain provisions. This could go either way.
    I just don't see how they could rationalize such a thing. The States are expressly forbidden from infringing upon the privileges and immunities of American citizens.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The 14th didn't automatically bind the states. It took centuries to selectively incorporate the bill of rights, and the court has refused to incorporate certain provisions. This could go either way.
    First a technical quibble: It has been barely a century and a half since the 14th Amendment was enacted, not "centuries".

    More pertinent, however, is the language of Heller. This paragraph from its conclusion seems fairly definitive:

    The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54Ė55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
    Further, prior court rulings are far from unfriendly towards the application of the Fourteenth Amendment toward an incorporation of Second Amendment rights into state law. Regarding the Second Amendment, there are three Supreme Court cases of particular interest: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), and U.S. v. Miller (1939).

    Cruikshank did not extend the Bill of Rights into state law, drawing instead a clear delineation between State and Federal jurisdiction:

    The government thus established and defined is to some extent a government of the States in their political capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the pepole. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree. Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence. It was erected for special purposes, and endowed with all the powers necessary for its own preservation and the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. It can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.
    However, Cruikshank also explicitly stated that the rights within the Bill of Rights were pre-existing rights (inalienable rights, if you will):

    Only such existing rights were committed by the people to the protection of Congress as came within the general scope of the authority granted to the national government.
    Cruikshank goes on to explicitly identify the right to keep and bear arms as being one such existing right:
    The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
    Interestingly, while Cruikshank declined to explicitly extend Fourteenth Amendment into the particular matter at hand, it did describe how the Amendment binds the states:
    The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but this provision does not, any more than the one which precedes it, and which we have just considered, add any thing [92 U.S. 542, 555] to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another. The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.
    Joining even just Cruikshank with Heller, the proper resolution of National Rifle Association, Maloney, and Nordyke is to incorporate Second Amendment protection into state laws.

    Presser took a similar stance. Without specifically speaking to the right to keep and bear arms, it drew a similar delineation between the State and Federal government:
    The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.

    The provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" does not prevent a state from passing such laws to regulate the privileges and immunities of its own citizens as do not abridge their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States.

    Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.
    Note also that Presser, while declining to extend the Fourteenth Amendment protections into State law, still binds the states against an absolute prohibition of the keeping of arms ("the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security").

    US v Miller is the first Supreme Court case that directly addresses the 2nd Amendment. However, it merely rules on the relative merits of Federal authority versus state police power; it is silent on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms itself.

    The original trial court in US v Miller held that the National Firearms Act was an unconscionable usurpation of a police power properly delineated to the states, and thus was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reverse, ruling the original trial court's finding to be "untenable".

    However, US v Miller by refutation demonstrates the supremacy of Federal over State authority in this area:
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

    The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
    While US v Miller is silent on the right to keep and bear arms itself, it definitively allocates whatever regulatory capacity as may exist to the Federal government and not the State government.

    Common to each of these cases is the sense that the US Constitution prevails over state law where there is clear conflict. This is very much in keeping with the Fourteenth Amendment. Cruikshank very appropriately notes the boundaries of both state and federal government, and points out that neither functionally exists outside of its boundaries, but also accepts the potential for both governments to overlap, and where such overlap does occur, the controlling standards are those of the US Constitution.

    I've read the Chicago case, and I believe they erred in their reasoning; the thrust of their ruling was that the Constitution meant to preserve differences among the states:
    But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule
    This is a valid point, but as a judicial standard it has to fail when a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is violated, else the entirety of the US Constitution has no substance at all. It would be one thing to argue a state having a different regulatory scheme for firearms from federal statute; that is not the argument made in the Chicago case, which deals with outright prohibitions on most types of handguns. Local differences cannot justify eliminations of Constitutionally protected rights. We know from Heller that the Second Amendment elucidates a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. We know from Cruikshank that the Fourteenth Amendment works to ensure that Constitutional rights are equally protected in all the states. We know from US v Miller that such capacity for firearms regulation as may constitutionally exist is indisputably within the province of the Federal government.

    No case is ever guaranteed a specific outcome, but, in light of Heller, I do not see how the Supreme Court could possibly sustain the Chicago ruling.

  9. #39
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,940

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    They are trying also to get the guns out of homes that get stolen and wind up in the streets. This city is a war zone in certain areas. There are no places to hunt in Chicago. There are no shooting ranges here. The only shooting that gets done is in the streets. They need to do something here.

    I can understand that people don't want to give up there guns and believe they have the 2nd amendment to protect that right. This city is not a place to stand for tha.
    Yeah because what right do I as a law abidding citizen have to defend my family from some piece of crap gang member that wants to rob my house. So if I understand your logic than if protests lead to civil disturbances in cities than cities become no place to stand for freedom of speech.

  10. #40
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    "The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitutionís Second Amendment, didnít apply to states and municipalities. "



    WTF? Who does it then apply to?
    Evidently it's up to the voters; just like gay marriage

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •