• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

Local Plaintiffs Will Be Present For Arguments In McDonald v.Chicago

As they hear arguments in a case to against Chicago's nearly 30-year-old handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court appears willing to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com

Says the mayor and the other anti-gun loons:

"We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago," Daley said.

So... what -is- the argument against the incorpration of the 2nd against the actions of the states, and how is it sound, given current jurisprudence regarding same?
 
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com

Says the mayor and the other anti-gun loons:



So... what -is- the argument against the incorpration of the 2nd against the actions of the states, and how is it sound, given current jurisprudence regarding same?

It's actually really ****ing complicated, and is made worse by the fact that some supporters of the ban are advancing some of the same arguments that opponents are advancing and vice versa. There are probably a dozen ways that this decision could come out. If you want a detailed discussion of the different issues, this is a fairly comprehensive roundup: McDonald v. City of Chicago - ScotusWiki

According to SCOTUSBlog, we're probably going to avoid most of that, as the court is just going to use Due Process rather than revisit the Privileges and Immunities issue:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.
 
What pisses me off is that not only are they taking my right to own a gun away, but they are also taking my money away in order to defend their right to take my right to own a gun away.

The quotes from these douchebags (Daley et al) in this article are absurd.
 
yeah and the crooks are really going to turn in their guns, not............
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...

You can do that in many places.
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...

Its perfectly legal in Kentucky to openly carry a firearm. To carry concealed requires a permit.
 
Does anyone know what law banned the open carrying of fire arms? I'm just wondering why we can't walk the streets with a 6 shooter (or 2 or more) strapped to our waist. Why can't we ride a horse (or vehicle) into town with a 30-30 on your shoulder...
In Ohio, open carry is legal.
 
...we're probably going to avoid most of that, as the court is just going to use Due Process rather than revisit the Privileges and Immunities issue:
Doesn't the removal of rights thru 'due process' necessitate some sort of criminal act on the part of the individual who has his right removed?

Seems to me that, if not, any and every right can be Constitutionally removed by simple legislation.
 
Its perfectly legal in Kentucky to openly carry a firearm. To carry concealed requires a permit.
Good to hear as I am going there soon.
How about TN?
 
I'm not so worried about while on the move -- its the 4-5 stops I will have to make for gas. Nothing says 'not from around here' like a moving van and trailered car.

So are you moving or are you helping someone else move?
 
So are you moving or are you helping someone else move?
My sister is moving to FL. She's flying down with the kids; the wife and I are driving the truck.
 
My sister is moving to FL. She's flying down with the kids; the wife and I are driving the truck.

Good luck and safe travels. :2wave:

The bright side is that she's not moving here or anyplace that passes through here. :lol:

At least until the supreme court rules on this case, that is.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com

Says the mayor and the other anti-gun loons:



So... what -is- the argument against the incorpration of the 2nd against the actions of the states, and how is it sound, given current jurisprudence regarding same?

"Reasonable laws" are bans of personal carry in emergency rooms and court houses, bans on ownership of artillery, guided munitions, explosives and similar, and loss of right to own/carry with the conviction of domestic violence.

Gray arias where I don't agree but am willing to negotiate are background checks, registration and licensure.

Unreasonable laws include total bans on carrying concealed, permit to own personal weapons in your home or on your land, and anything to do with so called "assault weapons".
 
Gray arias where I don't agree but am willing to negotiate are background checks, registration and licensure.
The problem with compromise on these issues is that compromise requires that both sides give something to the other. The anti-gun side has nothing to give to the pro-gun side in exchange for accepting these things.

These items are all infringements, none of which should be accepted.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com

Says the mayor and the other anti-gun loons:



So... what -is- the argument against the incorpration of the 2nd against the actions of the states, and how is it sound, given current jurisprudence regarding same?


Hopefully the supreme court strikes down that ban for violating the 2nd amendment. Criminals and the authorities should not be the only ones with hand guns and other types of weapons. It is not the government's right to restrict rights.
 
The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.
 
The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.

For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.

The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.

So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.

As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.

I don't know that this is an accurate reflection of what most/many/any social conservatives have claimed. The religious clauses of the first amendment were incorporated against the states 70 years ago, and I don't know of anyone who has argued that the court was wrong to do so. I suppose it's possible that some people have objected along those lines, but I very much doubt that the view you're referring to is shared by many. In regards to Lawrence, that's not particularly analogous, since it was a far more controversial right.
 
Last edited:
The problem with compromise on these issues is that compromise requires that both sides give something to the other. The anti-gun side has nothing to give to the pro-gun side in exchange for accepting these things.

These items are all infringements, none of which should be accepted.
Well of course, but you can't get what you want by reaching for everything all at once.

You have to take baby-steps.

So, no more gun-free school zones and I'll register my weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom