• 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!

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

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. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.

“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”

In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”
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.
 
The weekend of May 30-31, 2009 there were seven gun homicides in one twenty-four hour period in the city of Chicago. Nuff said for preventing law abiding citizens from "gun owners".
 
"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. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities. "



WTF? Who does it then apply to?
 
"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. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities. "



WTF? Who does it then apply to?


Who were the judges on that panel?
 
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.

As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention, either Federal or local. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.

I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
 
As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention, either Federal or local. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.

I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
Given its ruling in Heller, its hard to see how it cannot.
 
As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.

I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.
This one is definitely headed to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit, in Nordyke v King, rejected the reasoning used in the 2nd Circuit's Maloney v Cuomo, and is squarely at odds with National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago.

Conflicting appellate rulings make certiorari on at least one of these cases inevitable.
 
One wonders when the first amendment will no longer apply to States?
One wonders how it ever managed to BE applied to the states...
 
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.

And people think I don't know what I'm talking about when I bitch about Chicago. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than you will find in Chicago politics. There is no better example of big brother type politics. Disarm the People, give them no opportunity to fight back against the State and its goon squad. For as much as I love that city, the politics there are crazy. And Daley and his storm troopers use arguments like "collective safety" as the reason behind it. Which should immediately show the problems and dangers with the collective "safety" argument. Its a mainstay for those seeking to steal freedom and liberty.
 
And people think I don't know what I'm talking about when I bitch about Chicago. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than you will find in Chicago politics. There is no better example of big brother type politics. Disarm the People, give them no opportunity to fight back against the State and its goon squad. For as much as I love that city, the politics there are crazy. And Daley and his storm troopers use arguments like "collective safety" as the reason behind it. Which should immediately show the problems and dangers with the collective "safety" argument. Its a mainstay for those seeking to steal freedom and liberty.

Collective safety = hive mentality = element of Communism.
 
It's the second amendment, and the potential abolishing of it, that will eventually trigger the actual secession of part of this country. Just watch.
 
It's the second amendment, and the potential abolishing of it, that will eventually trigger the actual secession of part of this country. Just watch.

*Grabs popscorn and waits*

Ive been ready for this for some time. Let the local and state government take back the power that should be theirs.
 
The weekend of May 30-31, 2009 there were seven gun homicides in one twenty-four hour period in the city of Chicago. Nuff said for preventing law abiding citizens from "gun owners".

Seven guns died in one day? That's a damn shame.
 
Growing up in Chicago under the dictatorship of the Deadly Dick Daley I can tell you there is no word as "constitution" in the "Second City". If you doubt me ask his son Joseph Stalin Jr.
 
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.

How do you conclude that a unanimous panel decision against incorporation (featuring two of the three most brilliant conservatives in the nation) is a path to incorporation?

"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. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities. "



WTF? Who does it then apply to?

You're not seriously asking this, are you? Think about what type of government there might be other than state or local.


Who were the judges on that panel?

As mentioned above, two of the three most brilliant conservatives in the nation.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook]Frank H. Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner]Richard Posner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Enemies of the Constitution.

Or proponents of federalism. Y'know, whatever.

As our forefathers penned the Bill of Rights, it was determined that the right to bear arms is an "inalienable" right, not subject to Government intervention, either Federal or local. The Chicago law is unconstitutional, and the Appeals court is clearly in error.

I bet dollars to donuts that the Supreme court will correctly interpret the constitution on this issue when it gets there.

Can you show me evidence that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to bind state or local governments?

Given its ruling in Heller, its hard to see how it cannot.

Heller didn't apply it to the states.
 
Heller didn't apply it to the states.
Perhaps not explicitly, but Heller did affirm a fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The Fourteenth Amendment, however, is explicit in requiring the states to respect right elucidated in the US Constitution:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Heller we have an assurance the 2nd Amendment confirms the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. From the Fourteenth Amendment we have an assurance the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution may not be circumscribed by the states.
 
Can you show me evidence that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to bind state or local governments?

They didn't but we fixed that with the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Perhaps not explicitly, but Heller did affirm a fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The Fourteenth Amendment, however, is explicit in requiring the states to respect right elucidated in the US Constitution:



From Heller we have an assurance the 2nd Amendment confirms the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. From the Fourteenth Amendment we have an assurance the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution may not be circumscribed by the states.
Presumably before the 14th amendment you did not have right to bear arms if the state or locality said you didn't, only the feds were retrained. It was between you and your state or locality to decide the matter.

However post-14th amendment it would seem to be correct that the 2nd amendment retrains states and localities as well.
 
Presumably before the 14th amendment you did not have right to bear arms if the state or locality said you didn't...

The right to bear arms - as the Founders and American citizenry understood it - predated the Constitution. It was socially evident that the right to keep and bear arms was universal and immutable.
 
The right to bear arms - as the Founders and American citizenry understood it - predated the Constitution. It was socially evident that the right to keep and bear arms was universal and immutable.

But it was not protected in said constitution until the 14th amendment, presumably. Any such rights were between the individuals and their states.
 
Back
Top Bottom