Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

  1. #61
    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 Ethereal View Post
    But wouldn't you agree this failure to bind and incorporate was largely the consequence of institutionalized bigotry?
    Not really, what do most of the BoR have to do with bigotry?

    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.
    Something can be an "individual right" against the government but not against the state. If the federal government (pre-14th) passed a law saying that the people had an inalienable right not to be forced to pay income tax by the fed govt, that doesn't mean that the states can't force them to pay taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    uhm..... i cut out the rest to simply address this my friend.



    if this ruling was legal and constitutional, then why couldn't this same 3 judge panel uphold a law stating slavery was ok in chi town?
    Because a 3 judge panel in chi doesn't have authority to overrule the Constitution or SC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    2nd:

    "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."


    9th:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    Again, this only matters if you're arguing that the 2nd amendment applies to the states even in the absence of the 14th amendment. That's not what is at issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    this whole line of thinking makes no sense.


    what do the 1st 10 amendmendts do then?


    this 3 judge panel could by this logic.


    ban free speech, press, establish a chicago state church, suspend habeus corpus..... etc etc, etc.. to me this logic fails on so many levels.
    Before those portions of the BoR were enacted, the state absolutely could ban speech, establish religion, etc. (provided it wasn't barred by state constitutions).

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If it was convincing for the other amendments that have been incoroprated, why not for the 2nd?

    Whats the argument that the 2nd should not be incoroprated against the states?
    There aren't any amazingly good ones. A decision against incorporation would probably be some sort of Kennedy opinion based on wishy washy adherence to 100 year old precedent and the important policy concerns involved with guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I'm curious. Why do you feel the PIC argument is a loser? From my readings on the matter, even under the doctrine of selective incorporation, the Heller ruling makes incorporation almost inevitable.
    Because the SC specifically addressed and rejected the PIC argument in Presser, while they've never ruled on the DP argument under the modern framework. I guess it's possible that they'd incorporate it under the PIC, but I get the feeling that if they do, it will be on narrow grounds, which would fit the DP argument much better.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #62
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Who were the judges on that panel?
    Stalin, Lenin and Khrushchev
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #63
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    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.
    It sounds like their attempt to reduce gun violence by banning guns has failed miserably. It did, however, create a whole new victim class in Chicago...the law-abiding citizen. When will people understand that criminals don't abide by gun laws, and are therefore unaffected by laws that ban guns?
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  4. #64
    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
    Not really, what do most of the BoR have to do with bigotry?
    Perhaps I'm confused but when you said:

    The 14th didn't automatically bind the states. It took centuries to selectively incorporate the bill of rights...

    I assumed the failure to bind the states via the Fourteenth Amendment was largely a consequence of institutionalized bigotry, i.e. the unwillingness of the Federal government to force states to recognize the civil rights of blacks. Wasn't this the biggest obstacle to incorporation?

    Something can be an "individual right" against the government but not against the state. If the federal government (pre-14th) passed a law saying that the people had an inalienable right not to be forced to pay income tax by the fed govt, that doesn't mean that the states can't force them to pay taxes.
    Well, certainly, I understand that, but the fact remains the Fourteenth Amendment has been codified for quite some time now. I will concede that others probably know much more about the case history and development of the Constitution but I think a great deal of that "development" was just creative interpretation by the judiciary in order to maintain the status quo. I read the Constitution as it is and how the Founders intended. I take a very dim view of judicial precedent when reading the Constitution because of the judiciary’s historical misapplication of the Constitution.

  5. #65
    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 Ethereal View Post
    Perhaps I'm confused but when you said:

    The 14th didn't automatically bind the states. It took centuries to selectively incorporate the bill of rights...

    I assumed the failure to bind the states via the Fourteenth Amendment was largely a consequence of institutionalized bigotry, i.e. the unwillingness of the Federal government to force states to recognize the civil rights of blacks. Wasn't this the biggest obstacle to incorporation?
    I don't know that I would agree with that. I don't deny that it may have played a factor, but the biggest delay in incorporation was the decision in the Slaughterhouse cases, which had nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with local control over commercial activity. It took 60 years before incorporation really kicked in again.

    Even then, much of the BoR was incorporated in the 30's and 40's, long before the civil rights movement really grasped onto the 14th amendment. Once that happened, it definitely played a part in the incorporation of the remaining clauses, but most of the heavy lifting had already been done by then.


    Well, certainly, I understand that, but the fact remains the Fourteenth Amendment has been codified for quite some time now. I will concede that others probably know much more about the case history and development of the Constitution but I think a great deal of that "development" was just creative interpretation by the judiciary in order to maintain the status quo. I read the Constitution as it is and how the Founders intended. I take a very dim view of judicial precedent when reading the Constitution because of the judiciary’s historical misapplication of the Constitution.
    And from that perspective, I think you're certainly right.

    Floor statement of Sen. Bingham, sponsor of the 14th Amendment:

    "Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: [Here Mr. Bingham recited verbatim the first eight articles.]"

    "These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 06-06-09 at 04:57 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #66
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    Since it is basically illegal for anyone to own a handgun within city limits as of 1982, I vote that it wouldn't make a dent at all in the number of illegal guns on the streets.

    This is not a case of Chicago "trying" to do something to end the crime here. It's been around since I was 5. This is a case of Chicago FAILING to do anything about the crime here for 27 long years.

    If Chicago gives a rats ass about crime, why are our police officers without a contract... AGAIN. In a city where nobody but cops are allowed to use guns to defend themselves, you'd think they'd do their damnedest to keep these guys happy.

    But no. they prefer to waste MY money fighting for a law that steals MY rights.

    This has nothing to do with stopping crime and everything to do with giving the illusion that they are trying to do something about it.

    Daley is a scumbag piece of **** who needs to be voted out of office as soon as humanly possible, but unfortunately, that isn't going to happen til the worthless bastard dies of a massive coronary over his wife bitching about the noise at Meigs Field.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

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